Firearms With Face

January 8th, 2013 at 1:00:38 AM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 92
Posts: 2313
my 4 cents:

*when bullet hits bone you just don't know where it will go from there. The woman could have been placing pretty good shots, and they just don't hit the brain after deflection. I'm having a little trouble picturing how the perp stood there and took so many shots in roughly the same place. Takes a while to pull the trigger that many times. Wow.

*remember Lee Harvey Oswald's face when he got shot in the gut, if you wonder if that's not good enough and you need to hit the brain. That was a .38 too IIRC.

So, I agree, lesson learned should be "aim for center body mass"
Mustard:You like Kipling, Miss Scarlet? Sure, I'll eat anything [from movie]
January 10th, 2013 at 5:46:23 PM permalink
Face
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3322
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin

The People's Republic is at it again. NYS Governer Cuomo, using the recent tragedies as a springboard for a power grab, has proposed one of the most restrictive gun legislations in our Nation's history, pledging to "beat Washington and lead the way to gun control". NYS lawmakers described the deal as "95% done" and "(should be) wrapped up pretty quickly". Cuomo has been quoted saying "Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the State could be an option. Permitting could be an option - you could keep your gun but permit it." At least he was honest enough to admit that permitting would "bring much needed revenue" to this epically mismanged land.

So what does this mean for the NYS gun owner?

Part of the bill strengthens NYS's misnamed "assault weapon ban". NYS adpoted the Fed's 1994 AWB, only without a sunset clause. NYS's ban is forever. Part of the ban made illegal any magazine over 10 rounds made after 1993. The proposed update to the law makes all such mags illegal, regardless of date of manufacturing. I have such mags. I will be a criminal.

Any gun capable of accepting a mag in excess of 10 rounds will be considered an assault weapon. My Del-Ton? Banned. My DPMS? Banned. My GLOCK? Banned! My Viper .22cal plinker? BANNED! Ruger 10/22? BANNED!! If you have an "Amish Machine Gun", the Remington 760/7600 pump action rifle, one of the most popular hunting guns in the State, you just got banned. An expensive Benelli shotgun? Banned. Of my 12-ish guns, only 5 will make it. I will be a criminal.

None of the guns to fall under this new legislation will be granfathered. Get rid of them or go to jail. Oh! But they're also cracking down on P2P sales within the state. So, I have an "illegal" gun, that no one can own, no one can buy, and no gun shop will take because they can't sell them. I'm not surrendering $6,000 worth of equipment to the State. I will be a criminal.

If a person possesses three or more weapons, they will be charged with criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree. So, if you have a .22 for plinking, a shotgun for hunting, and a pistol for SD, you as much of a "bad guy" as if you had an MG-42, made bombs in your basement, or were a felon in possession of a gun. I will be a criminal.

Internet ammo sales will be illegal, but a majority of ammo purchases are in person or through the mail. So what's the point? I think it's a "chip", a small liberty to remove in preparation for more. Get control of ammo coming in, then squeeze the ammo from the inside.

"Americans used to roar like lions for liberty; now we bleat like sheep for security." - Norman Vincent Peale

If that wasn't idiotic enough, the things he's said to condone and encourage support are nothing short of maddening.
- "They will help law enforcement keep guns out of the hands of criminals and other dangerous people and save lives.” Oh? Name one way, just one, wherein banning random weapons helps "keep them away from criminals and dangerous people". I'm young. I'll wait...
- “It’s simple, no one hunts with an assault rifle. No one needs 10 bullets to kill a deer. End the madness now.” For starters, no one owns an "assault rifle' period, thanks to NYS's Draconian gun laws. As the Governor of NY, I kind of expect you to know that already. But when in the history of ever have guns been primarily about hunting? What part of the Second Ammendment gives us the "right to hunt"? This guy, a politician, someone who should "know the rules", is apparantly just a fisherman. Damn near a pro. His quarry? Red herring, of course.
- "(This) is not taking away people’s guns. That is not what this is about. It is about ending the unnecessary risk of high-capacity assault rifles." Again, for the hundredth time and I'll say it a hundred more - These Are Not Assault Rifles. These are not "high capacity". A Benelli shotgun, a Ruger 10/22, an already neutered, 10 round GLOCK, these are what people consider "assault weapons"? No, this is not about "unneccesary risk". This about the actions of two people, one mentally unstable, one a career criminal, giving the Gov an opportunity to strip 17 million people of their rights, and expose them to definite risk by creating hordes of "soft targets".

Isn't it funny, these politicians who supposedly believe in and create these gun free zones and bans on "assault weapons", still feel the need to carry a security force into said gun free zone, who are all carrying true, military grade assault weapons? Isn't it ironic? Doncha think?

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

Bottom line, this isn't up for discussion. The Bill of Rights is the single most brilliant document ever put to paper. It created a foundation, one upon which the greatest social, economic, and military force was built. It allowed the creation of the greatest Nation ever to be seen in the history of the Earth. The First Ammendment allowed its creation. The Second Ammendment guarantees it. To allow anyone to continue to pick at it, to weaken it, to damage the foundation on which we all live, is not something I will ever stop fighting against. I urge everyone to do the same.
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
January 11th, 2013 at 8:39:54 PM permalink
Face
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3322
I needed something to cheer me up after all this bad news on the gun front. And I found something that made me smile. Smile along with me, won't you? =)



6 and 8 shot double action revolvers. Amazing. Look at that reload!

I suppose wheel guns are now going to be considered "assault weapons", too?
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
January 12th, 2013 at 9:58:05 AM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 92
Posts: 2313
Quote: Face
Cuomo ... pledging {to} "beat Washington and lead the way to gun control". NYS lawmakers described the deal as "95% done" and "(should be) wrapped up pretty quickly". Cuomo has been quoted saying "Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the State could be an option.


Shockingly bold. General Confiscation has never been done in the US, has it?

Reliable source here, Face?
Mustard:You like Kipling, Miss Scarlet? Sure, I'll eat anything [from movie]
January 12th, 2013 at 10:44:58 AM permalink
Face
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3322
Quote: odiousgambit
Reliable source here, Face?


I think that might be up to you to decide. The original place I seen it was an obviously biased report on guns.com. The second place was probably equally as biased, at conservativebyte.com (take a byte out of liberalism). However, if you just Google "Cuomo gun confiscation", you'll get hit after hit of people talking about it.

How about the NYTimes? Is that liberal? Reputable? A good ying to the yang of the conservatives? They've quoted him saying the same thing. Everything I posted is outlined in the NYTimes.

I usually wait a moment before ramping up my "freak out" level, just to make sure one sided rumors or extreme biases aren't in play. In this case, everything I reported here is 100% what he said and what he plans to do. How likely it is to pass isn't something I can tell right now, but it's enough to get me fired up. It's a blatant attack on Freedom and an insult to my intelligence.
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
January 12th, 2013 at 12:23:34 PM permalink
odiousgambit
Member since: Oct 28, 2012
Threads: 92
Posts: 2313
Sorry, Face, I had to ask. Sometimes this stuff is urban legend in the early stages. Sometimes a guy should be prodded to rethink "what's the source?" and that includes me often enough.

In this case, I am willing to believe Cuomo's thinking/private statements are being leaked.

I'm not sure I am ready to believe it's such a done-deal.
Mustard:You like Kipling, Miss Scarlet? Sure, I'll eat anything [from movie]
January 12th, 2013 at 12:55:12 PM permalink
Face
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3322
Quote: odiousgambit
Sorry, Face, I had to ask. Sometimes this stuff is urban legend in the early stages. Sometimes a guy should be prodded to rethink "what's the source?" and that includes me often enough.

In this case, I am willing to believe Cuomo's thinking/private statements are being leaked.


No apology needed. I hope I didn't say something to make you think I was offended. I'm the same way; whenever I hear crying on Facebook or some crazy, panic filled story, I always ask "what's the source?", so I don't fault your skepticism or desire to dig deeper. To be honest, when I saw the first source, guns.com, I nearly blew it off. Of course it's going to be hyped up, right? But then I heard it again, and again, and that caused me to dig. When I see 10 or more sources all quoting the same thing, and all being from different viewpoints, that's when my typing goes from "hey, I heard..." to "hey, this is happening...".

And this wasn't some leak from behind closed doors. These are direct quotes from his State of the State address on 1/09/13. These are his plans, from his mouth, spoken loud and proud to the public. Hence my heightened intensity in the post.

Quote: odiousgambit
I'm not sure I am ready to believe it's such a done-deal.


I'm hoping not. But there's been the growing outcry from the public. The State Senate, although controlled by Republicans, have made peeps about supporting said bill. CT, CO, CA, there's States everywhere attempting similar gun strangling legislation. Then there's Obama.

To quote Founding Father Patrick Henry, "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who comes near that precious jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. When you give up that force, you are ruined." They're not just coming near it, they've outlined a plan of attack. I'm way past suspicion. I wonder whence comes the force.
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
January 13th, 2013 at 4:01:55 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 850
Posts: 10149
Has anyone ever located the supposed source of Larry Pratt's claim that UK had 970 gun murders.
January 13th, 2013 at 12:27:50 PM permalink
Face
Administrator
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 61
Posts: 3322
Quote: Pacomartin
Has anyone ever located the supposed source of Larry Pratt's claim that UK had 970 gun murders.


I haven't, and here's why...

I don't care.

See, I've studied gun stats more than anyone I know, probably more than anyone should without getting paid for it. Quite simply, in and of themself, they mean nothing. If you were to give me any stance, pro or anti, on any gun, any region, any contry, any law, I could pull up verified facts from reputable government sources that would completely support your claim. You want a stat that shows handgun bans mean less gun violence, no problem. A stat that shows increased handgun owners equals less gun violence, I got that, too. This whole game by both sides throwing up graphs from the FBI, the Fed, the UK, whatever, are all so much song and dance.

To even get to the bottom of one stat is crazy work. Does the "gun violence" stat include suicides? Does it include perps who died as the result of the victim practicing proper self defense? Does it include perps who die at the hands of a LEO? Does it include gang bangers capping each other with illegal weapons? Does it include accidental shootings in the home or woods? Does it include perps who were run off without a shot being fired? If a home invasion leaves four dead, is it "one instance" or "four dead"? Depending on which way you want to graph to go, you just add or drop things to suit your needs. Give the exact same info to the NRA and the Brady Campaign, and both will show you just how completely necessary/unnecessary guns are.

From what I know about the UK, I'd say that figure isn't true, at least not for "gun murders in one year". They don't have guns, so gun crime is quite low (See! Outlaw them!). It's all their other crime that leads the world (Wait, what?).
Be bold and risk defeat, or be cautious and encourage it.
January 13th, 2013 at 3:22:32 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 132
Posts: 6590
"How to lie with statistics" was a course I took in college. (also the name of the course book.) It was actually taught to teach how to catch the lies.

But I'm not about to adopt a tin foil hat view on everything just because there are so many competing agendas trying to color all the results.
Nobody learned anything from the global financial crisis.