Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

I was refering to how some people have been convicted of excessive force purely due to hoe the weapon looked. I.e. a tactical shotgun vs. a hunting rifle.

At 8/2/04 01:19 AM, Spookshow wrote: I was refering to how some people have been convicted of excessive force purely due to hoe the weapon looked. I.e. a tactical shotgun vs. a hunting rifle.

Another problem is that people do not understand the dynamics involved when there is a lethal confrontation.

If you are unfortunate enough to be in a situation that includes extreme levels of violence and therefore your life is threatened, measures have to be taken which appear to be excessive to one that is uneducated in the area. For example, you may shoot someone ten times in their chest from ten feet away. Many people would consider this to be excessive force, and although it may be, it is quite necessary.

Consider that fact that your heart can be blown out of the back of your chest, yet you can still survive and operate for about a minute before your brain shuts down your nerves. You see, in cases as such, your intention is to stop the person. They will generally die from this, however the original intenetion is to stop them. If they have a gun, or another weapon that is capable of taking your live quickly, this sort of action needs to be taken in order to stop them. You must completely stop them otherwise your life is still in danger. If you take advanced force on force or lethal force training, you learn this.

The problem as I said above is that people do not understand what it is like to be involved in this type of situation. In a real life situation that involves high levels of violence, what you see in the movies is far from what actually happens. I could talk about this for hundreds of paragraphs, but ill abstain for now. Case being, multiple close range shots can be justified when you consider the fundementals behind the law as well as understanding the dynamics of a life threatening situation.

Thank you Brandon for such an informatice post. We need more level headed, fact driven people like you. Another point I have to make:

Police often shoot a suspect several times. People who shoot home invaders do so too. So what?

If someone is coming at you and you fear for you safety, are you going to try to:

Call the police.
Wrestle with him.
Run.
Cower.
Or shoot him/her until they stop moving?

You don't aim to kill, you aim to live. Center of mass.

At 8/2/04 01:39 AM, Spookshow wrote: You don't aim to kill, you aim to live. Center of mass.

Or you may have to change your stratagy and put one through their brain after multiple shots to the chest. Its the sad reality; im being dead serious here.

And thats what generally happens; its close range, and extremely fast/violent. By all means, if you can run away or avoid the situation, that must be your first stratagy.

For example, if youre in your home, you need to run to the furthest point and seek a cover that is capable of slowing a bullet. You should call 911 and yell as loud as possible to the intruder. You only shoot if necessary. Its necessary when they enter the room, not when they are 45 feet from you.

A great book on this is written by Massad Ayoob, who is an expert in this area.

"In the Gravest Extreme"

At 8/2/04 01:46 AM, -Brandon- wrote: Or you may have to change your stratagy and put one through their brain after multiple shots to the chest. Its the sad reality; im being dead serious here.

Granted, but by then after several shotgun blasts that person would be pushed far enough back to think.

And thats what generally happens; its close range, and extremely fast/violent. By all means, if you can run away or avoid the situation, that must be your first stratagy.

True, a lack of confrontation to begin with is the best outcome.

For example, if youre in your home, you need to run to the furthest point and seek a cover that is capable of slowing a bullet. You should call 911 and yell as loud as possible to the intruder. You only shoot if necessary. Its necessary when they enter the room, not when they are 45 feet from you.

Oh course, more good points.

Call 911 as you lock your door.
Load your firearm.
Yell to the intruder that the police are on their way and you are armed.

Although, sometimes you don't have enough time and must do multiple things or cut some.

a gun in hand, is better than a cop on the phone.

It appears that Kerry is for the assault weapons ban. I just read in the paper, that he is for prolonging the ban. Odd, especially since the selfsame article said he claimed to be pro-gun.

At 8/2/04 03:37 PM, Gunter45 wrote: It appears that Kerry is for the assault weapons ban. I just read in the paper, that he is for prolonging the ban. Odd, especially since the selfsame article said he claimed to be pro-gun.

Pro-gun an assualt weapons can easily be put into 2 different catergories. I mean pro gun may mean like wanting every American to have the right to own a gun. And then he also wants to make sure that the guns the people can have are nice prudent guns that people would use in a safe and germane matter. Now someone tell me a germane use for an M-16 or an AK-47 to the general public, or any civilian for that matter?

At 8/2/04 03:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 8/2/04 03:37 PM, Gunter45 wrote: It appears that Kerry is for the assault weapons ban. I just read in the paper, that he is for prolonging the ban. Odd, especially since the selfsame article said he claimed to be pro-gun.

Pro-gun an assualt weapons can easily be put into 2 different catergories. I mean pro gun may mean like wanting every American to have the right to own a gun. And then he also wants to make sure that the guns the people can have are nice prudent guns that people would use in a safe and germane matter. Now someone tell me a germane use for an M-16 or an AK-47 to the general public, or any civilian for that matter?

Ummm... just to let you know. Kerry is not for the Assualt Weapons Ban. He is for a modification and extension act called HR 2038, which bans EVERY SEMI AUTO, not just assualt weapons. EVERYTHING. He also supports the "cop killer ban" which is just a BS title that the supporters gave it. It bans certain calibers or exclusivly sp* "Any rifle cartridge which can pierce a police officers bullet resistant vest". Um.... cops vests are designed to stop PISTOLS. Not RIFLES. No pistol resistant vest is going to stop a hunting rifle. Camaro, M-16's and AK-47's (Automatic Weapons) have been heavily regulated since 1934 under the NFA. The law of 1994 or the assualt weapons ban, doesn't even touch those. It bans certain cosmetic features. We covered the uses of semi auto weapons in previous threads. IN TURN, KERRY IS NOT PRO GUN.

At 8/2/04 03:53 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Now someone tell me a germane use for an M-16 or an AK-47 to the general public, or any civilian for that matter?

dose it matter? the AK and the m-16 are the same semi-auto guns you can buy anywhere.

You did not answer the question. And the fact is no civilian needs a machine gun. Semi auto works fine for hunting and if you have so many people attacking your home that you need an ak to defend it then odds are you deserve what they're trying to do

I never stated a case for or against automatic weapons. The laws we are talking about, including the second amendment don't cover auotmatics.

Just like the first ammendment, the second ammendment doesn't provide for a "which type" it only allows that we can. The first ammendment has come to preclude from protection screaming "fire" in a crowded movie theatre..so I suppose there are limitations that can be put on the 2nd ammendment as well.

I tend to think that any "ban" will only make a particular outlawed item all the more valuable and a black market or a "loop-hole-market" will thus be created, totally circumventing the law. Thus , instead of a ban, I do favor regulation, or testing for competency before ownership..I know it's a slippery slope..but we are not talking about cotton candy here, we are talking about lethal items.

I agree that the assualt weapons "ban" is 100% cosmetic in nature. And who really cares about "hunting purposes" anyways. I've NEVER been hunting in my life, but I still enjoy a trip to the hills and shooting a few guns every now and then..the more "assault-looking" , the better. I never met anyone who would trun down a free test drive on a Ferrarai when a perfectly good '69 VW Big was around as well.

SeattleFred

Welcome to the AWB Fred. :)

At 8/3/04 08:17 PM, stafffighter wrote: You did not answer the question. And the fact is no civilian needs a machine gun. Semi auto works fine for hunting and if you have so many people attacking your home that you need an ak to defend it then odds are you deserve what they're trying to do

LOOK AT THE FACTS THE AWB HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MACHINE GUNS...NOT A DAMN THING..... PLEASE PEOPLE, GET YOUR FACTS STRAIGHT,I'M SICK OF HAVING TO CORRECT PEOPLE WHO CAN'T READ

CHECK OUT www.awbansunset.com AND PLEASE GET THE FACTS

Also, www.gunowners.org is good.

Well you know! I will say one thing here > the right to defend home by weapons is in a weird exchange with the right to life new IDIOTS WE DON'T FUCKING need conflict discuss!

I don't believe in any right to life when someone breaks into my home. They get shot. If they die, oh well. One less criminal.

Psychlogical testing to find potential "dangerous" people? Why not test EVERYbody who might be pre-dispoded to commit a crime and lock them up before they commit it? You don't need a gun to be dangerous. I can commit a lot more mayhem and violence with a few pounds of fertilizer and some diesel or an automobile. The AWB, and gun-control in general, is all about PEOPLE control. It doesn't matter if you think I have no good reason to own a so-called "assault weapon". I personally think there is no good reason for anyone to own a souped-up 1957 Corvette, but hey, it's none of my business. And for those who say that the second amendment is a collective right, then all the other amendments that include the words "the right of the people" are collective rights also, meaning you have no individual right to a free press, or to gather, etc. AND, it matters not what I want a gun for. It is not about hunting, or target shi\ooting, or defending myself. It just sez I have a right to keep and bear arms period.

Good points.

If I can't have a supped up AR-15 why should someone have a street legal car that can go 150 with 0-60 in 4.6? No cop car can keep up with this.

"It is not about the guns. It is about the people. We have to bring honor back to society and create better people. We are running out of prisons"

Very nicely put.

"If the government ever decides to take people on then random people with guns will not defeat trained and fully euqiped units of soldiers. As for martial law. While others are still decideing if the country is going to become mad max or terminator I I will fly away to another land."

Quite the opposite. There are what, 80-90 million guns in this country, and the army has a hard time mustering 50,000 combat (that means rifle-toting) troops. The troops on the front lines of Iraq aren't very well equipped, either. The average gun enthusiast shoots much more than the average soldier or law-enforcement member. I think if there were ever a need, the citizens of this country could put up a very effective deterrent to a tyranical government. This is the reason the 2nd amendment is there, and the reason why George tried to disarm the colonists. George got what he deserved!!!

I like the way they refer to whatever the "firearm de jour" is as an "assualt" weapon...like "assault" pistols.... stirs up that fear that you may be "assaulted" with one!

Just like how the misnamed on purpose the "Cop Killer ammo ban"?

At 8/14/04 03:50 AM, Spookshow wrote: Just like how the misnamed on purpose the "Cop Killer ammo ban"?

exactly....all bullets can kill cops!
and once again,the ban was made by people who know NOTHING about guns(like banning .50 cal when .480 acp is more powerfull....they think the number is how powerfull the bullet is...
but .22 LR can pierce 1" thick bank-glass(i've seen it) but .357 magnum will not....

Steele core ammo was banned as a "cop killer" even though 7.62x39 FMJ is legal....hint:ALL high power rifle ammo can pierce body armor.... it was banned because pistols which chambered 7.62mm ammo began to be imported....but the pistol ammo is 7.62x25!!!!..the bullets they banned don't fit the weapon they were worried about!

Now....if it isn't stupid enough for you,7.62x25 FMJ is still legal in many states.....it was SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED to pierce body armor!!!!!

There was a major bank heist a couple of years ago where they built a vault for some diamonds that was neigh inpenetrable they said. It could withstand almost any caliber. The crooks beat it by using a nail gun.

i dont see what the big deal is any way. they're just guns.

At 8/15/04 08:17 PM, fatherjay wrote: i dont see what the big deal is any way. they're just guns.

(my reply is to civilian use)

Because frankly, they're unnecessary. As put earlier, if you take them hunting, there is NO challenge whatsoever. You just 'spray and pray' as it was once said. There is no skill involved to pull a trigger and hope you hit something.

Situation: A pistol/shotgun toting lunatic is at the mall, and fires into a crowd. The weapons, being semi automatic, have to be squeezed again and again to fire, then reload, as the clips of the pistol arent very big, and shotguns have to be reloaded every time. he fires into the crowd and kills 3-4 people

Situation 2: An M-16 weilding maniac is at the mall, and fires into the crowd. He holds the trigger down and sprays the area, and pops out his clip, and pops another in. he sprays bullets into the crowd and kills 10-20 people.

(assuming both have a general knowledge of their weapon, e.g. a basic felon/thief/lunatic)
Who killed more people, and who would be harder for the local police force to stop?

At 8/15/04 08:50 PM, Raistlin230 wrote: (my reply is to civilian use)

Because frankly, they're unnecessary. As put earlier, if you take them hunting, there is NO challenge whatsoever. You just 'spray and pray' as it was once said. There is no skill involved to pull a trigger and hope you hit something.

Situation: A pistol/shotgun toting lunatic is at the mall, and fires into a crowd. The weapons, being semi automatic, have to be squeezed again and again to fire, then reload, as the clips of the pistol arent very big, and shotguns have to be reloaded every time. he fires into the crowd and kills 3-4 people

Situation 2: An M-16 weilding maniac is at the mall, and fires into the crowd. He holds the trigger down and sprays the area, and pops out his clip, and pops another in. he sprays bullets into the crowd and kills 10-20 people.

(assuming both have a general knowledge of their weapon, e.g. a basic felon/thief/lunatic)
Who killed more people, and who would be harder for the local police force to stop?

Since when have we been taking about fully automatic weapons? Not for the last time (someone is going to bring this ridiculous comment up again, you can count on it), nobody is supporting the legalization of automatic weapons. Assault weapons != automatic weapons, there is a difference. The assault weapon ban covers semi-automatic rifles, cartridge size, and I think some caliburs. There's some other stuff, too, but automatic weapons have been banned since the 30s.