Firearms With Face

Page 3 of 40<123456>Last »
December 17th, 2012 at 4:48:09 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 56
Posts: 6321
Face can you speak to weapons that would disable rather than kill. What about some type of pepper spray, rubber bullet, or something more creative that could incapcitate a violent criminal without resorting to deadly force or guns, bullets, and lots of blood? I think while we talk about the zombie attacks the real thing we are all interested in is defending our homes and Churches from is one or a small group of violent people. I would think that there must be something out there that could do the job well and not be a gun.
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
December 17th, 2012 at 4:57:14 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 132
Posts: 6590
If those teachers had pin firing tasers they might, (I say might, but not for sure) slowed down the attacker enough to jump on him. Once an attacker is in a school room he's tasable at those distances. Better than nothing.
Nobody learned anything from the global financial crisis.
December 17th, 2012 at 5:20:34 PM permalink
Face
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3322
Quote: FrGamble
Face can you speak to weapons that would disable rather than kill. What about some type of pepper spray, rubber bullet, or something more creative that could incapcitate a violent criminal without resorting to deadly force or guns, bullets, and lots of blood? I think while we talk about the zombie attacks the real thing we are all interested in is defending our homes and Churches from is one or a small group of violent people. I would think that there must be something out there that could do the job well and not be a gun.


I'd be more than happy to. With so much going on, I forgot to mention that was a big part of the conversation with my friends on the force. When I get home, though. No time right this minute. Expect it same time, ~2a Eastern.
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
December 17th, 2012 at 11:18:19 PM permalink
Face
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3322
Quote: FrGamble
Face can you speak to weapons that would disable rather than kill. What about some type of pepper spray, rubber bullet, or something more creative that could incapcitate a violent criminal without resorting to deadly force or guns, bullets, and lots of blood? I think while we talk about the zombie attacks the real thing we are all interested in is defending our homes and Churches from is one or a small group of violent people. I would think that there must be something out there that could do the job well and not be a gun.


Where to start? First, just to address the zombie thing... I'm a little torn in this thread, since it combines the fun and sport of guns with the serious nature of SD. I can see where it gets a little weird at times. When simply talking about guns, as I was when making suggestions for Aces, I'll often be goofy and fun because it is fun. SD, on the other hand and as many can understand, isn't fun at all. It's not hitting a target and having it blink out of existence like a video game. It's a violent, gory interaction, full of panic, fear, and undoubtably, remorse. This is taking a man's life, which for most of us, would be an earth shattering experience. I don't know what else to say, as I've never even seen a thread like this where everything's mixed together. Gun threads are usually fun, SD very serious. This is both. It's hard to do. =/

But anyways, your question. Let me say that I've never considered any of these as an option, and therefore am not as familiar with these as I am with firearms. But I know a bit, some from simple curiosity, some from talks with my buddies, so here goes...

OC spray is legal in most places, but quantity is usually very limited. A common size is 2oz, which isn't that big. It's nowhere near the jugs the police use. At that size you have one good burst, and then we see where we're at. If you miss...
Another big problem is fallout. We won't consider wind, since I assume that if you were outside, you'd be smart and just run. But inside, that spray is going to affect you and everyone near you. Hopefully not as bad as the assailant, but you'll notice it. The jury's still out as to how dangerous it is, but people have died from it, usually those with athsma, other breathing issues, those on medications, and the elderly.
Then there's the range. We're talking a few feet at best. Imagine you are at church or at home, and think of where your time is spent in relation to all the entrances. How likely is it that when a threat is perceived, you'll be able to close the distance to bring your spray to bear?
Lastly, there's the effect. The spray will blind and make breathing difficult for anyone who contacts it, but that's it. Assuming you pop him dead on and unload the entire can right into his face, someone, presumably you, will still have to enter that cloud, disarm him, and then restrain the guy until help arrives. Best case scenario, you're in for a fight. Maybe for your life.

Rubber bullets and bean bags I'm nearly clueless on. I know they're sold, but I've no idea their legality. Despite their increased "safety", they are still quite deadly. Shots to the chest could stop the heart or break ribs and send them into the heart. A shot to the neck could crush the larynx or break the spine. A shot to the head may as well be done with 00 buckshot. I don't know the ballistics, I don't know how they spread, I don't know the range.

Tasers are illegal in many states. The ones that do allow them still usually require some sort of licensing similar to handguns. These, if used properly, will drop anyone and everyone. At 6' 210lbs, I'm not a little guy, but that exactly how my cop buddies refer to me. They're man mountains. 4 of them knelt down, arms interlocked, and a probe put in the end guy's arm. They were bound and determined to rise to their feet upon being tased. The other probe hit the guy on the other end, and all four of them fell to their faces. These things will take down whomever they hit, and will do so immediately. You may have heard stories of convicts saying they'd rather be shot than tased. My Sheriff buddy volunteered to be tased twice and now says the same thing. They are devastating weapons.
The problems, again, are delivery. Same as the OC, you have to close the distance. If you manage to do that, you still have to hit the guy and both probes have to embed. If you do that, you better damn well be sure the batteries are charged. If all of the above conditions are met, you better hope a probe doesn't become detached when he falls. If it all comes together, you'll still have to go in, disarm, and restrain. For a number of reasons, you can't just hold a tase on for 5-10 minutes until help arrives.

Personally, I always think of the Use of Force Ladder...


On this ladder, Steps 1 and 2 are verbal / body language reactions. Step 3 would be your OC spray, tasers, and/or physical altercation. Step 4 would be use of weapons designed to injure, such as a bat or axe handle, and those designed to kill, such as a gun. In any confrontation, you always want the upper hand. With a concealed weapon, you are guaranteed to at the very least be on equal groud. You have options depending on where you are on the ladder and hopefully won't even get to the point of having to draw. Without a weapon, you don't have that option. Your Step 3 desires are something, at least. But if a Step 5 pops off, it is very likely you'll no longer be "FrGamble". You'll be "the late FrGamble".

I not only understand your concern, I can empathize. As you may know from our history of speaking, I'm not a cold person. I don't devalue life and am in fact probably too sensitive, not even allowing flies and spiders to be killed in my home (I catch them and take them outside, sue me =p). If I found myself in a shoot to kill scenario, I'd likely suffer a great deal personally from the encounter and probably "Monday Morning Quarterback" the situation for years, if not the rest of my life. But bottom line, if a person threatens the life of my son or my sons father, that person has surrendered their right to life. At that point, it's him or me, and I'm not spraying him with OC and hoping it works, nor trying a Hollywood-esqu leg shot to make him think twice. I'm doing what every SD teacher teaches and every police friend I have encourages, and that's shooting to kill as quickly and decisively as possible. Center mass, until he drops. Because while the pain of taking a man's life would be one of the worst things I'd ever experience, the thought of my son being assaulted, violated, or witnessing his father be slain eclipses that completely.
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
December 19th, 2012 at 8:30:39 AM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 56
Posts: 6321
Thank you very much Face, as always excellent post. I just don't know what to think about this issue. I'll keep praying and keep reading Firearms with Face. I know you've talked about some of your favorite automatic assult type weapons. Can you speak to why these types of guns are important for gun enthusiasts like you?
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
December 19th, 2012 at 11:03:25 AM permalink
AcesAndEights
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 5
Posts: 238
Quote: FrGamble
Thank you very much Face, as always excellent post. I just don't know what to think about this issue. I'll keep praying and keep reading Firearms with Face. I know you've talked about some of your favorite automatic assult type weapons. Can you speak to why these types of guns are important for gun enthusiasts like you?

I'm pretty sure Face doesn't own any fully-automatic weapons if that's what you mean. Fully-automatic weapons are incredibly difficult to own legally, based on federal law.

The term "automatic" is troubling due to how widely it can be applied, namely to either semi-auto or fully-auto.

Semi automatic - fires one round per trigger pull as fast as you can pull the trigger. The "automatic" in this case refers to the chambering of a new round. Legal for handguns, hunting rifles, shotguns, and "assault weapons" in most states.

Fully automatic - fires multiple rounds per trigger pull. Highly regulated in the US, but possible for a civilian to obtain after jumping through multiple hoops and paying a LOT of money. I don't believe there have been any notable mass-shootings in the US perpetrated with a fully automatic weapon.

I'm trying to find a source for the above, but I'm having difficulty getting a good one. Here's at least a decent article about the regulations surrounding fully automatic weapons.

I apologize if you already know this and were specifically referring to semi-automatic weapons. But the nomenclature is important and a lot of people, especially lately, have been mis-using terms (intentionally or not).
"You think I'm joking." -EvenBob
December 19th, 2012 at 5:40:11 PM permalink
Face
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3322
You’re quite welcome, FrG. I don’t blame you for not knowing what to do. Whether ignorant on the subject as many are, somewhat knowledgeable as SD enthusiasts are, or actually trained in this stuff as my police friends are, we’re all at a loss of what to do. I believe a large scale effort is going to be needed, and any one step fix, whether trying to take guns away or just filling the school with armed guards, isn’t going to solve the problem.

Aces brought up a good point, one that I addressed in the “Newtown, Conn” thread, but will readdress it here. The term “auto” as used by the media is misleading at best. Speaking technically, there are two types of these actions; Semi-Automatic and Automatic. A Semi Automatic, as Aces stated, refers only to the reloading process. A Semi, after firing, will automatically discharge the spent round, reload a fresh one, and reset the firing pin. It will not fire another round unless you release the trigger and pull it again, firing one round per trigger pull. An Auto will discharge, reload, reset and continue firing as long as you hold the trigger. >99% of civilians own a Semi Automatic, and a majority of these shootings occur with a Semi.

Perhaps the problem is simply vernacular and our habit of abbreviating and shortening words. Since owning a true Auto is nearly unheard of, we gun guys always refer to our semis as “autos”. “Hey man, got a new 870!” “You did? Sweet! Pump or Auto?” It’s common, and the fact that it’s not technically correct means nothing. Every gun guy knows exactly what we mean when we say auto. But when it comes to the media, it raises problems. I expect the media to report factual information, and saying someone used an automatic weapon, even for someone like me who is used to the misnaming in general conversation, immediately causes me to think of the stereotypical “machine gun”. At best, the media is using the same casual terms you’d use with your buddies, which spreads misinformation. At worst, they’re purposely using words to drum up outrage. It’s not right ethically, and it’s not right technically. Lanza did not use an Auto, an Assault Rifle, or an Assault Weapon. He used a semi automatic gun no different than the millions owned by Americans across the country.

Due to this common mistake of misnaming rifles, I am unsure of exactly what you are asking. If you’ll bear with me, I’ll just cover the whole subject. Keep in mind, I’ll be using terms technically and not confusing things by falling into common speak. I’ll apologize in advance for the length, because this will be quite long indeed…

As Aces stated, I do not own an Auto, an Assault Rifle, or an Assault Weapon, for reasons I’ll get into later. My rifles pictured in this thread are Semi Automatics based on Assault Rifle platforms. As I stated in the Newtown thread, the only difference between one of my rifles and one that looks more at home in the woods is that one is made of composite and one is made of wood. One looks “scary”, one looks “normal”. That is it.

If your question is why one of my Semi Auto rifles pictured earlier are important, well, they’re not super important on the surface. I could get the same performance out of a more typical style gun. These specific guns were bought as opposed to a typical configuration gun partially out of fear that they’d be banned and skyrocket in price out of my range. Second is an investment, because if that should happen, my $1,200 gun just went to $4,500. Third is just an appreciation of a quality product. Unlike wood, these won’t warp, scratch, or rot. And then there’s the military fan in me. While modern stuff isn’t my true interest, I still like it and would like to hold onto it.

I do talk about Autos occasionally. Probably my number one dream gun is an MG-42.

As for why, I don’t think I could communicate a reason. I often compare it to my love of cars, as there’s no other way to explain it. There are cars with antiquated safety features (if any), 8mpg or less economy, top speeds far in excess of what’s legal or even possible on public roads, yet they’re desirable. Why? Dunno, man, but I want one! Me and Autos are kind of like that. In the case of the MG-42, I think it’s beautiful. The country bumpkin part of my brain loves big bangs, and it delivers in spades. As a military fan, it was an infamous weapon, nicknamed “Hitler’s Buzzsaw”.. As an American who is also a 3rd generation German immigrant, I feel somewhat of a personal connection to it. It might be kind of twisted, but it’s a weapon that terrorized my Grandfather and his brothers in arms and killed a number of our grandparents. There’s something about knowing that this weapon was neutralized by America’s Greatest Generation, taken from the worst place in recent human history, and was then bought with Capatalist dollars by the same middle class, working class country boy that defeated that regime. To have it displayed in my home, right under the flag given to my grandfather upon his death by the United States Army for his service in WWII and Korea, would fill me with pride every time I looked at it.

But as for a rational reason to own one, there is none for me. I’d first have to move out of NY, have a lot of money to spend on proper certifications and permits, surrender my 4th Ammendment Rights, have $30,000 to buy the gun, find somewhere that supplies 8mm Mauser rounds, have thousands of dollars to waste on just ammo, all for no reason whatsoever. Can’t hunt with it, can’t use it for SD, and I don’t have a bunker to protect nor hordes of zombies/Canadian occupiers to defend from. At the most, I might take care of a computer printer “Office Space” style, maybe rip off a belt to blow off some steam, but it’d really be pointless. But man, do I want one ;)

Automatic Rifles, Automatic Weapons, Light Machine Guns (LMGs) and Squad Automatic Weapons (SAWs) are really kind of useless from a practical standpoint. The first Assault Rifle was the German Sturmgewehr, literally “Storm Rifle”, as in “a rifle you storm with”. Tactically, Autos are used to lay down covering fire to allow a unit to advance. As a weapon to kill, they are completely inefficient. Think of the Normandy Beach landing. You have a mass of soldiers advancing over open area, so you just send waves of bullets hoping you hit something. You’re spraying and praying. A civilian doesn’t have the luxury of an ammo depot or a team assisting the delivery and reloading of said weapon. In the Bank of America robbery in ’97 (Google/YouTube, you can watch the whole thing) two guys had ARs illegally converted to Automatic fire and had high capacity drum mags. They shot over 2,000 rounds over the course of several minutes, including inside the bank, outside the bank, and down public roads. Two people died. TWO. They were the two shooters, one from blood loss from police bullets, the other self inflicted. If I’m ever in a movie theatre that gets hit, I pray the assailant has a machine gun.

I said all that to say this – Most people simply don’t know guns. They hear “Assault Rifle”, they see a gun that looks like a soldier should carry it, and they freak out. “OMG, the horror! Those don’t belong in the hands of the public!” The reality is, none of it matters. If tasked with hitting 20 targets with 20 rounds from short range as fast as possible, I could do it with my fancy AR based rifle, a mag extention on my pump action shotgun, or my GLOCK all equally as easy. Given the same amount of rounds, a real, fully automatic AR would actually be much less potent as I’d miss a lot more and waste my 20 rounds. My point is, no matter how many restrictions you place, how many guns you ban, or how many laws you pass, none of it is going to make a lick of difference. History proves it. To directly answer your question of “why they’re important”, they’re important because it’s not just a gun we’re talking about. We’re talking about our civil liberties, about our Constitution, about our ability to protect ourselves, and about our freedom. Each law passed chips away at our freedoms; never once have I seen a law restore them. To suffer the loss of our freedoms for an ill-thought-out, knee jerk reaction that will continue to chip away our civil liberties and give the government more power while not affecting the original problem whatsoever is not something that I can stand idly by and watch happen.

Part of my “fighting back” is this thread. While I’m not sure I can change a mind by using passionate words and making good arguments, at the very least, I hope to educate on what exactly we are facing. Even if someone remains deeply anti-gun, as some in this thread seem to be becoming, they’ll at least have the proper information to make an informed decision. If that prevents even one person from supporting one of these knee jerk, completely pointless ideas and thereby protects our freedoms, then it’s worth it. If it convinces people that “gun control” isn’t the solutions, then I’ve done my job. If it causes people to think outside the box, understand the problem, and actually come up with a proper solution, then we all win.

Sorry for the long thread, but a lot’s been on my mind. It’s hard to give so much info in so few words, and as long as this is, I might have missed some stuff and you might still have questions. If so, I’ll still be here….
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
December 19th, 2012 at 7:23:07 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 132
Posts: 6590
Here's a question for you to consider.

When Timothy McVeigh blew up the the Federal Building what was the response to his obtaining the ingredients. They made it more difficult for legitimate users to obtain, more paperwork perhaps, because they now wanted to track who was buying what, and whether it was for legitimate purpose.

Tracking/ monitoring, restricting. All this applies. This approach is rejected, (It seems to me) by the gun lobby.

Also, no matter how strict the gun control law is in my state - if it is possible for me to bypass that, perhaps going to another state, or another state and gun show, whatever, then essentially, we don't really have gun control in the US at all. It's not really fair to say we have.

Also, I appreciate that YOU want to have a gun and plan to commit no atrocities. Is it really terrible for YOU to have to have more difficulties to get your gun just so we don't make it easy for some FELON to get his? I'm not saying you shouldn't have it. I'm just saying let's make sure it's not so easy.
Nobody learned anything from the global financial crisis.
December 19th, 2012 at 7:55:44 PM permalink
FrGamble
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 56
Posts: 6321
Wow Face I really do want to thank you, I learned a lot in your last post and as always it was well written and easy to understand. I agree with you about protecting the erosion of our civil liberties and I appreciate your honesty in saying that there are a lot of things we want, not necessarily because it makes sense, but because it is just darn cool. I don't think we should outlaw those reasonable pursuits for some unexplainable and personal happiness.

I also understand the difference between fully automatic and semi-automatic guns now. I also see that fully automatic guns, while able to send out a wall of hot lead, run out of bullets quick and cannot be aimed efficently. I got to say it made me think about how truly sick this individual was in killing those kids now that I know every bullet required a seperate pull of the trigger.

For what it is worth you are convincing me that "gun-control" as it is thrown around right now will be about as successful as the "war on drugs".
“It is with the smallest brushes that the artist paints the most exquisitely beautiful pictures.” (
December 19th, 2012 at 9:59:55 PM permalink
Face
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3322
Quote: rxwine
Here's a question for you to consider.

When Timothy McVeigh blew up the the Federal Building what was the response to his obtaining the ingredients. They made it more difficult for legitimate users to obtain, more paperwork perhaps, because they now wanted to track who was buying what, and whether it was for legitimate purpose.

Tracking/ monitoring, restricting. All this applies. This approach is rejected, (It seems to me) by the gun lobby.

Also, no matter how strict the gun control law is in my state - if it is possible for me to bypass that, perhaps going to another state, or another state and gun show, whatever, then essentially, we don't really have gun control in the US at all. It's not really fair to say we have.

Also, I appreciate that YOU want to have a gun and plan to commit no atrocities. Is it really terrible for YOU to have to have more difficulties to get your gun just so we don't make it easy for some FELON to get his? I'm not saying you shouldn't have it. I'm just saying let's make sure it's not so easy.


The McVeigh one is tough for me. Do you know of any study or stat that shows that due to these new regulations and restrictions, massive bombings such as what he did have been lessened or affected whatsoever? I'm not being snarky, it's an honest question. I almost think that due to their rarity, it might not yet be known.

But as an analog, I'll ask you to think of meth. Similar to your McVeigh arguement, the materials to make this deadly, disgusting substance have been restricted in the government's attempt to rid us of it. Yet, there are no shortage of meth labs, meth users, and people blowing themselves up in their homes. I've no stats to quote as I've never researched it, but I'd bet money that meth is more available and produced in higher quantities today than it was pre-regulation.

Gun control does exist, and that's kind of my point. Whether it's the North Hollywood Shootout, Columbine, Colorado, Sandy Hook, whatever, laws were broken during these incidents. "Control" as it stands means no high capacity mags, no auto fire, no ownership by felons or the mentally unstable, no possession inside a Federally controlled building like a school or bank... what have these restrictions done for us besides restrict possession by the lawful? They sure haven't prevented gun crime, and I can understand your belief that we don't really have "gun control". If you have an idea of how to control guns, I would hear it.

But please understand that my biggest gripe isn't about me. Like I said, I can be objective. Wants and desires aside, I may never even find myself in a position to buy another gun again, regardless of whether or not laws change. You could even throw my freedom arguement out the window too, if you'd like. Quite simply, I have a severe aversion to illogic. If restrictions don't work, it seems painfully obvious that more restrictions aren't going to either. If you have new, as-yet-unthought-of restriction, let's hear it. A different combination of a few restrictions, let's discuss it. But if it's more of the same ol' same ol' that been proven not to work, our time would be much better spent breaking out of the box we're in and doing our thinking outside of it.

Quote: FrGamble
Wow Face I really do want to thank you, I learned a lot in your last post and as always it was well written and easy to understand. I agree with you about protecting the erosion of our civil liberties and I appreciate your honesty in saying that there are a lot of things we want, not necessarily because it makes sense, but because it is just darn cool. I don't think we should outlaw those reasonable pursuits for some unexplainable and personal happiness.

I also understand the difference between fully automatic and semi-automatic guns now. I also see that fully automatic guns, while able to send out a wall of hot lead, run out of bullets quick and cannot be aimed efficently. I got to say it made me think about how truly sick this individual was in killing those kids now that I know every bullet required a seperate pull of the trigger.

For what it is worth you are convincing me that "gun-control" as it is thrown around right now will be about as successful as the "war on drugs".


As always, you are quite welcome, FrG. In my opinion, your analogy to the War on Drugs is spot on. Whether is the WoD, Prohibition, prostitution, or now the gun thing, all of our time, effort, money and focus is on the Result, not the Cause. But like I said, that's a "hard solution". That's something that would take a not insignificant amount of effort, and it would take a commitment to stick with it. Truth be told, I'm not even sure it's possible. Take a look at AZDuffman's post in the Newtown thread on page 10, it'll save me a lot of typing. He and I aren't similar; I'm much more left socially than I believe him to be, but I cannot +1 the point of his post hard enough. Society lost something, actually, probably a lot of things. I'm not sure what, I'm not sure if it was certain things or a culmination of a lot of things, but I bet something in there needs attention. How can we pinpoint it and What can we do when we find something? I have no idea. But we haven't found the Cause yet, so it's not where we're looking, which is at the gun. How long are we going to keep looking in a place we know it not to be?
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
Page 3 of 40<123456>Last »