Printable View
Not sure about .223 but years ago a buddy of mine admitted to accidentally wounding his friend with bird shot when exactly that happened..Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
He was giving personal experience as to why you NEVER shoot at anything in or near the water unless you're shooting straight down..
You know, if it wasnt for the EPA fucking it all up, this carp problem wouldve taken care of itself already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
"Dont dump those chemicals there, dont mine for nickel here, blah blah blah"
Back on topic. I spent quite a few words claiming that the Uvalde cops didn't feel their vests were up to snuff to protect them from high velocity AR15 rounds. At least three of you called me an idiot and posted their SWAT team and other random claims that standard police vests DO protect from that kind of file..
I'm waiting for your apologies LOL..
Uvalde police who delayed entry into school during shooting were waiting for protective gear: Probe
Expect cops all over the nation to be saying "NOPE" to these kinds of threats. And yes, that's against protocol to wait for better gear. Back to the notion that police need better options to defend these threats if we're going to keep letting anyone who isn't already a felon be able to obtain them on any given day.
You're correct. There is no soft body armor out there that protects from rifle fire. Some of the new stuff works better than it used to, but none of it is rated for rifle fire. You need at least a level III+ hard plate preferable with a ceramic facing to defeat rifle fire. Pretty much any rifle fire. That being said, my buddies ran into Trolley Square in 2007, some with gym clothes on, and put that shooter down 6 minutes after the first 911 call. "My body armor doesn't stop rifle fire" is a fucking pathetic excuse. Every patrol officer in my department has a level IV rifle plate in their trunk they can throw on over their soft armor if needed. Level IV plates are very heavy and not good for normal long term wear.Quote:
Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
And SWAT vests have the same ballistic protection as the concealable patrol vests worn by beat cops. More coverage, but same threat protection level. The difference is most teams will add the hard armor rifle plates to the SWAT vests.
F*, Charles -
Why did they arrive without body armour ?
I believe I wrote it two weeks ago - if I was working in Response-to-violence ( / 'law enforcement' / "Public Safety" ), the second thing I would purchase would be body armor - submitted for reimbursement ;
Uvalde seems to be a model example of Murphy's law - until Bortac assumed Incident Command...
let's give the 'active shooter' pranter a rest
( clearly municipal law enforcement is not reliable.
how does a town of 16000 have a school district police department (?) W.T. ... )
I apologize to the children -
it appears this is the price we pay to live in a society of assault weapons.
skiJ
Thank you for this ^Quote:
Originally Posted by DeepHelmet
skiJ
I get that working a 60 hour week carrying plates would totally suck. I also get that protocol is to go storming in there to engage immediately even without the plates. As mentioned, I get why Uvalde did say "NOPE", and others will say "NOPE". I don't have a good answer other than requiring LEOs to assume great risk of harm or death in these situations..Quote:
Originally Posted by DeepHelmet
What I don't get is why isn't every LEO organization screaming from the rooftops that we need to eliminate these threats from our society as much as possible? Or, are they privately wanting to be personally prepared for said mayhem if things go south with society? We saw what happened briefly in the aftermath of Katrina where LEOs pretty much just took care of themselves and their own families when shit got real there for a couple days..
I expect more crickets on that last part.. i.e. folks WANT to have the ability to carry out mayhem themselves should they decide they want to for whatever reason. We just don't want those other people we don't know to have said potential.
From my perspective, the people who expect “things to go south” are also the ones who are most likely to provoke “things going south”
It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy
No one else in society is anticipating tyranny or civil armed conflict or breakdown of society
Meanwhile these same people think they are patriots defending the country when they are anticipating & preparing for its demise instead of taking that energy and doing something to promote civil society
.Quote:
A bipartisan group of senators announced Sunday that it had reached a tentative agreement on legislation that would pair modest new gun restrictions with significant new mental health and school security investments — a deal that could put Congress on a path to enacting the most significant national response in decades to acts of mass gun violence.
Twenty senators — 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans — signed a statement announcing the framework deal. That indicated that the agreement could have enough GOP support to defeat a filibuster, the Senate supermajority rule that has impeded prior gun legislation.
Under the tentative deal, a federal grant program would encourage states to implement “red flag” laws that allow authorities to keep guns away from people found by a judge to represent a potential threat to themselves or others, while federal criminal background checks for gun buyers under 21 would include a mandatory search of juvenile justice and mental health records for the first time.
Other provisions would prevent gun sales to domestic violence offenders beyond just spouses, closing what is often called the “boyfriend loophole”; clarify which gun sellers are required to register as federal firearms dealers and, thus, run
background checks on their customers; and establish new federal offenses related to gun trafficking.
The agreement does not include a provision supported by President Biden, congressional Democrats and a handful of Republicans that would raise the minimum age for the purchase of at least some rifles from 18 to 21. Handguns are already subject to a federal 21-and-over age limit.
Other provisions would funnel billions of new federal dollars into mental health care and school security programs, funding behavioral intervention programs, new campus infrastructure and armed officers. One cornerstone of the deal is legislation sponsored by Sens. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) to establish a nationwide network of “community behavioral health clinics,” though the framework does not yet include an agreed funding level for that program or others.
The announcement Sunday represents the fruit of a crash bipartisan effort launched in the days after the May 24 killing of 19 children and two teachers inside Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Tex., which itself came 10 days after a mass shooting inside a Buffalo supermarket.
Protestors share how gun violence has changed their lives
It also comes one day after thousands attended pro-gun-control rallies across the country organized by the student-led March for Our Lives group, including a Washington event on the National Mall. Sunday is also the sixth anniversary of one of the country’s deadliest mass shootings, the 2016 killing of 49 people inside the Pulse nightclub in Orlando.
Ahead of Sunday’s announcement, senators had publicly sketched out their negotiating positions in general terms.
Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who has led Democrats’ efforts on gun legislation since the 2012 school shooting in Newtown, Conn., said during an anti-gun-violence rally Friday that he was determined to break congressional stasis on gun legislation, but not at any cost: “I’m not interested in doing something unless that something is going to save lives, unless that something’s going to be impactful and meaningful.”
Meanwhile, John Cornyn (R-Tex.), who has an A-plus rating from the National Rifle Association, said last week that he is interested in forging a compromise, but only if it preserves gun owners’ rights under the Second Amendment.
“This is not about creating new restrictions on law-abiding citizens,” he said. “It’s about ensuring that the system we already have in place works as intended.”
Key pitfalls remain: The framework announced Sunday amounts to a statement of principles, not a fully written bill. While people involved in the process said last week that significant chunks of the legislation have already been written, new points of friction frequently arise in Congress as the drafting process is finalized.
Red-flag laws, in particular, have raised many conservative Republicans’ hackles, though negotiators said last week that they believed there would be sufficient GOP support to pass any deal. The “boyfriend loophole” and firearms licensee provisions have also been subject to prior bipartisan talks that did not produce agreements.
“The details will be critical for Republicans, particularly the firearms-related provisions,” said a GOP aide familiar with the talks. “One or more of these principles could be dropped if text is not agreed to.”
Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he planned to “put this bill on the floor as soon as possible” once the legislative drafting is completed, a process that aides said could take several days. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) did not formally endorse the deal in a statement Sunday but offered encouragement to the negotiators: “I continue to hope their discussions yield a bipartisan product that makes significant headway on key issues like mental health and school safety, respects the Second Amendment, earns broad support in the Senate, and makes a difference for our country.”
The framework also won plaudits from gun-control advocates, including the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Everytown for Gun Safety, which cast the agreement as a historic breakthrough, even though it does not include the tougher measures those groups have long advocated.
Everytown President John Feinblatt said that, if enacted, the framework would be “the most significant piece of gun safety legislation to make it through Congress in 26 long and deadly years,” while Brady President Kris Brown called it “a 30-year breakthrough in the making” and “a historic, new beginning that breaks the stranglehold of the gun industry.”
“In a less broken society, we would be able to require background checks every single time someone wants to buy a gun, and we would ban assault rifles outright,” said March for Our Lives co-founder David Hogg. “But if even one life is saved or one attempted mass shooting is prevented because of these regulations, we believe that it is worth fighting for.”
A National Rifle Association spokeswoman did not immediately respond to a request for comment Sunday.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) signaled Friday that the Democratic-controlled House would move to enact whatever bill the Senate managed to pass. “If it’s life-saving and can make a difference, and they have bipartisan support for it, then we would welcome it, even though it won’t be everything that we want,” she said at a news conference.
The House has passed four gun-related bills that go considerably further than the tentative Senate deal. Last year, lawmakers passed a bill expanding federal background checks to all commercial transactions, including those conducted at gun shows and over the internet, as well as a measure extending the period the FBI has to complete background checks of prospective gun buyers.
Also last week, in response to the recent shootings, the House passed bills that banned sales of many semiautomatic rifles to those under 21, banned high-capacity magazines and promoted red-flag laws in both state and federal courts.
None of those bills has the requisite Republican support to pass the Senate.
The last substantial new federal gun-control laws were passed in the mid-1990s — the “Brady bill” of 1993, which created the national instant background check system, and the assault weapons ban of 1994, which outlawed some military-style semiautomatic rifles and handguns. The latter bill expired 10 years later and has not been renewed.
In recent decades, Washington has acted mainly to expand gun rights. In 2005, for instance, Congress immunized the firearms industry against product liability lawsuits, and in 2008, the Supreme Court enshrined an individual’s right to possess guns in the landmark case D.C. v. Heller. A 2013 push in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting to expand background checks to cover more gun transactions, including gun-show and internet sales, fell six votes short in the Senate.
In an interview Thursday, Murphy said he believed that the chamber had two weeks left to act — before lawmakers leave Washington for a two-week Independence Day recess.
But meeting even that timeline would require a framework for a deal to be put in place quickly, Murphy said, citing the likelihood that gun rights supporters in the Senate would seek to erect procedural hurdles to any potential legislation.
“We can’t come to agreement the last week we’re here,” he said. “There are people in the Senate that are no doubt going to use every rule available to them to hold this up and slow it down.”
There was plenty of mayhem in 2020 - and
there was plenty of mayhem escalated by armed Federal forces ( without identification ).
what was the question ?
skiJ
I gave up my semi auto rifle (nothing all that crazy, 22 plinkster with a 25 round mag). I gave it and my others to the police when my daughter was hospitalized for a suicide attempt. I've since picked up two other firearms well secured where I could never get to them in time to save myself or family from a sudden home invasion.. Packed way in a wall secured save way out of reach until that possible breakdown.Quote:
Originally Posted by ::: :::
I'm 100% all in in giving up my current firearms WHEN we finally have the balls to make all this shit illegal for everyone. We gotta all give it all up together. I'm way more afraid of the random "good guy" losing his shit in traffic or at work than I am of some random criminal trying to rob me at gunpoint. Plus, those bad guys get their guns from us good guys. cut off that source and the bad guys will have fewer and fewer sources for guns to commit crimes with.. WIN WIN>.
Edit to add I don't own anything that a standard police issue vest won't handle. Pump shotgun and a 9mm.
100%Quote:
Originally Posted by ::: :::
Anybody else want to clap back at the argument ammozexuals are pushing about 18 year old kids deserving the right to buy ARs?? i.e. because they can shoot real full auto in the US Military?? Well DUH!! The US Military is a FUCKING "WELL REGULATED MILITIA". A random unsupervised 18 year old with an AR is not "well regulated".
On and on why no pro individual right to 2nd A proponent wants to debate live and only pushes the same tired, debunked talking points over and over with no discussion..
Oh so they’re making excuses for their cowardice? That’s their claim, we can disregard it because it’s contrary to active shooter protocol, should we believe them? I think notQuote:
Originally Posted by SumJongGuy
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Both correct, protocol says get your ass in there IMMEDIATELY with whatever you have to work with. Shit they wear usually won't do jack shit against those weapons.. So they said "NOPE!". Expect that to happen more and more with this "cops deserve to go home to their families at the end of the day first and foremost" narrative. And for what they're paid I can't really argue against that too much. Rather than sending them in as AR fodder we should be getting rid of that threat as the preferred solution..Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
See below for more on the protective gear problem..
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeepHelmet
This "let's do something about those other people I like the way things are for me" attitude is a lot of what neutered the ACA and single payer. We have to go ALL IN TOGETHER to ditch the current healthcare insurance and go with Medicare for all. Those insurance companies have people believing that somehow we're all going to get worse healthcare by cutting their pork out of the equation..
Same with the NRA and gun industry having people paranoid that giving up military grade hardware makes them/us more at risk for criminal attacks. Calling BS to both. ALL IN TOGETHER is how we can and will get to a better, FIRST WORLD society.
I've never wanted to be in the military. Fuck that. I'm into cars.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
As far as cool factor is concerned. It doesn't get much cooler than being taught by SEALs to shoot. I'm selling a product and this is an event. I've also got a popular rifle manufacturer involved. Like I said... This is chess son. Let me handle the folks that have defense contracts and such. They buy Lamborghinis (with your taxes).
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6b/65...498e94fd8c.pngQuote:
Originally Posted by Stuntmonkey
Would you mind saying what you pay LARP coaches? Apologies for the drift, but I've got a hole in my non-academic lesson industrial complex data. I assume your datapoint represents top dollar? TIAQuote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Stainless
https://i.imgflip.com/34mvav.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by jono
Don’t call me son you fucking coward. I’m older than you and I’ve spent my life in service to others you beer bellied wannabe. You’re scum and exemplify what’s wrong with this cuntryQuote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Stainless
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Yall should focus on your goal or whatever.
I sold an Aventador for $244k over the msrp. 22 Huracans are listed at 350k (about 70k over). 22 Urus are 50k over.
Does it really matter what I pay for the entertainment?
I knew that would do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MagnificentUnicorn
If you want my address to come and speak directly with me, I can work that out.
You and the guy that has punched 20 people in the face can come beat me up. Clown.
Would you get your Tier 1 operator to back you up? Fucking troll that’s all you areQuote:
Originally Posted by Bobby Stainless
You’re a coward because you hide behind your wealth and lack the humanity to do anything but serve yourself.
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums