IGX

LOL ABC.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QjZY3WiO9s[/youtube]

"police officers with EXTENSIVE firearms training.." Ha Ha Ha! Bunch of bullshit. They show clips of our local P.W. Smurfs training on the public access and they fucking blow. When I worked at shooters, the majority of the cops I saw shoot blow.

This was one of the most scewed peice of shit around. A few Generation Duh dweebs with a stupid crash coarse. An Airsoft Warrior. Did they talk to them about cover? The way I was trained, fucker comes in the door with a gun already deployed, get down in a crouch or even hit the floor and deploy your weapon.

The whole message implied "It's useless for you to protect yourself, you are weak little sheep and only the LAW can effectivly deal out leathal force. Don't even try."

DARTH wrote: The whole message implied "It's useless for you to protect yourself, you are weak little sheep and only the LAW can effectivly deal out leathal force. Don't even try."

Exactly.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_cIhnUEEng[/youtube]

Can't we all just get along?

Actually, there is another, very correct message in that video: Owning and carrying a gun will not protect you in and of itself. Training and practice are key

SAR wrote:Actually, there is another, very correct message in that video: Owning and carrying a gun will not protect you in and of itself. Training and practice are key

And situational awareness. Don't go where you don't belong, don't let your egress be blocked, bail if you have a bad feeling.

SAR wrote:Actually, there is another, very correct message in that video: Owning and carrying a gun will not protect you in and of itself. Training and practice are key

Very true, however you will agree this is not the message this video was trying to convey, as it was mentioned in a five second segment of an 8 min video.

DARTH wrote: The way I was trained, fucker comes in the door with a gun already deployed, get down in a crouch or even hit the floor and deploy your weapon.

You've been hitting the apocalypse juice pretty hard these past few days. It was the Wyoming Navy, wasn't it?

Turdacious wrote:Can't we all just get along?

No.

Yeah the video/experiment was bs. But I really do know folks who own guns for protection and barely know how to load them

Jezebel Jones wrote:

DARTH wrote: The way I was trained, fucker comes in the door with a gun already deployed, get down in a crouch or even hit the floor and deploy your weapon.

You've been hitting the apocalypse juice pretty hard these past few days. It was the Wyoming Navy, wasn't it?

No sweetie, ask you Marine, fuckers got the drop on you, if you have cover go to it because the chances of you drawing while standing static before he jacks some rounds into you is slim and none.

Hmmm Apocalypse Juice? That has a good ring to it.

SAR wrote:Actually, there is another, very correct message in that video: Owning and carrying a gun will not protect you in and of itself. Training and practice are key

And the right kind of training. Lots of cops may be terrible shots, but there are a lot of civilian fatties at the range who think they're protected on the street because they do the firearms equivalent of kata at the range twice a month and have a CCW permit.

Seems to me like the "armed intruder" targeted Joey specifically, so the claim of "he would have been killed in the 1st 5 seconds," isn't realistic for a completely random shooting.

If anything, this video proves that there should be a Hogan's Alley game in every household.

The video proves:
1 - The element of surprise is a great advantage.
2 - The scenario put the student at an extreme disadvantage, because of surprise, unfamiliar work gloves, and a long T shirt, against an extremely prepared attacker.
Also, when the students practice, the pistols are already clear of the T shirts.
3 - ABC has an anti-gun agenda.



I'd like to see the Virginia Tech scenario run, where students hear gunshots from down the hall, and know they might be next.

*****

Having a gun doesn't guarantee success, it just improves your odds.

Those "tests" were so severely rigged that they don't even highlight the importance of training (which is not something I dispute). Simple classroom instruction (e.g., seek cover); not having an unfamiliar, multi-level retention holster more appropriate for a beat cop; and not using a well-trained "gunman" who knew exactly which of the "students" to target would have likely produced a different outcome, even without further training.

And since when is it realistic for everyone to flee the room in a situation like that? That might be what you hope your students would do, but it's not what's happened in the real cases.

Pinky wrote:Those "tests" were so severely rigged that they don't even highlight the importance of training (which is not something I dispute). Simple classroom instruction (e.g., seek cover); not having an unfamiliar, multi-level retention holster more appropriate for a beat cop; and not using a well-trained "gunman" who knew exactly which of the "students" to target would have likely produced a different outcome, even without further training.

And since when is it realistic for everyone to flee the room in a situation like that? That might be what you hope your students would do, but it's not what's happened in the real cases.

I don't care what the law says, my boys will be given compact .40s or .45s before they go off to College.
They will allready be trained far better than your average Cop and are allready being taught that the relerence for human life is conditional. Most people's lives are precious, an attacker is an animal, sub human and worthless for anything other than worm food.

DARTH wrote:

Pinky wrote:Those "tests" were so severely rigged that they don't even highlight the importance of training (which is not something I dispute). Simple classroom instruction (e.g., seek cover); not having an unfamiliar, multi-level retention holster more appropriate for a beat cop; and not using a well-trained "gunman" who knew exactly which of the "students" to target would have likely produced a different outcome, even without further training.

And since when is it realistic for everyone to flee the room in a situation like that? That might be what you hope your students would do, but it's not what's happened in the real cases.

I don't care what the law says, my boys will be given compact .40s or .45s before they go off to College.
They will allready be trained far better than your average Cop and are allready being taught that the relerence for human life is conditional. Most people's lives are precious, an attacker is an animal, sub human and worthless for anything other than worm food.

I recommend off-campus housing.

This guy has a creative marketing plan: Eric Thompson, TGSCOM Inc.

His company sold weapons/accessories to the Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho and to Steven Kazmierczak who shot up Northern Illinois, as well as to George Sodini who murdered 3 women and wounded 9 others at a health club in Pittsburgh.

Thompson visited VA Tech after the shooting

... offering a discount for students who want to carry guns on campus to protect themselves.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id= ... 1EvJfHQKSo

FRKCTL wrote:This guy has a creative marketing plan: Eric Thompson, TGSCOM Inc.

His company sold weapons/accessories to the Virginia Tech shooter, Seung-Hui Cho and to Steven Kazmierczak who shot up Northern Illinois, as well as to George Sodini who murdered 3 women and wounded 9 others at a health club in Pittsburgh.

Thompson visited VA Tech after the shooting

... offering a discount for students who want to carry guns on campus to protect themselves.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id= ... 1EvJfHQKSo

Hopefully he'll take the opportunity to point out that Internet sales don't work the way that people who worry about them think they do. Companies like his do nothing to circumvent the normal background checks required to make a purchase.

But that will not be heard over the whining about his offering a discount to a group of students who invited him to speak. Next time he should be less generous to his hosts.

Pinky wrote: Hopefully he'll take the opportunity to point out that Internet sales don't work the way that people who worry about them think they do. Companies like his do nothing to circumvent the normal background checks required to make a purchase.

I see.

There's no background check: Anybody that has a murder conviction can simply log on, e-mail someone, meet them in a parking lot and buy a freaking AK-47

~ Steve Barborini, a former supervisor for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/02/ ... 328823221/

First the corner of your link had an Obama- Biden ad. 2nd the report was done by NBC News aka "We are not as obvious as our attack dog MSNBC. 3rd I have a good friend in the BATFE and he will tell you how corcked an outfit they are, if Fast and Furious and Wacko did not tip you off.

If any of ths is true than how come no one is setting in a holding cell?

And even if it's true, so what? Criminals get guns on the street or they get a slit with no recored to buy guns for them. An honest ATF agent (There 2 or 3) will tell you that if you grew up in the Burbs and did not know that already.

Pinky wrote:

DARTH wrote:

Pinky wrote:Those "tests" were so severely rigged that they don't even highlight the importance of training (which is not something I dispute). Simple classroom instruction (e.g., seek cover); not having an unfamiliar, multi-level retention holster more appropriate for a beat cop; and not using a well-trained "gunman" who knew exactly which of the "students" to target would have likely produced a different outcome, even without further training.

And since when is it realistic for everyone to flee the room in a situation like that? That might be what you hope your students would do, but it's not what's happened in the real cases.

I don't care what the law says, my boys will be given compact .40s or .45s before they go off to College.
They will allready be trained far better than your average Cop and are allready being taught that the relerence for human life is conditional. Most people's lives are precious, an attacker is an animal, sub human and worthless for anything other than worm food.

I recommend off-campus housing.

All depends on where you go to college-- U Chicago is case and point.

FRKCTL wrote:

Pinky wrote: Hopefully he'll take the opportunity to point out that Internet sales don't work the way that people who worry about them think they do. Companies like his do nothing to circumvent the normal background checks required to make a purchase.

I see.

There's no background check: Anybody that has a murder conviction can simply log on, e-mail someone, meet them in a parking lot and buy a freaking AK-47

~ Steve Barborini, a former supervisor for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/02/ ... 328823221/

You really have no idea what you're talking about. The "villain" of your first story is an online dealer that can only ship to a FFL, who must then run a background check. No one's avoiding a background check by dealing with him.

The second story refers to something like a Craigslist for guns. It's simply a way of arranging private sales. Nothing is bought or sold online.

Turdacious wrote:

Pinky wrote:

DARTH wrote:

Pinky wrote:Those "tests" were so severely rigged that they don't even highlight the importance of training (which is not something I dispute). Simple classroom instruction (e.g., seek cover); not having an unfamiliar, multi-level retention holster more appropriate for a beat cop; and not using a well-trained "gunman" who knew exactly which of the "students" to target would have likely produced a different outcome, even without further training.

And since when is it realistic for everyone to flee the room in a situation like that? That might be what you hope your students would do, but it's not what's happened in the real cases.

I don't care what the law says, my boys will be given compact .40s or .45s before they go off to College.
They will allready be trained far better than your average Cop and are allready being taught that the relerence for human life is conditional. Most people's lives are precious, an attacker is an animal, sub human and worthless for anything other than worm food.

I recommend off-campus housing.

All depends on where you go to college-- U Chicago is case and point.

Well aside from the grand West Point, Annapolis or Oxford dreams, where they would not have as much risk, I like places like JMU and George Mason. Or maybe in Kentukey, where they really respect gun rights.

Pinky wrote:

FRKCTL wrote:

Pinky wrote: Hopefully he'll take the opportunity to point out that Internet sales don't work the way that people who worry about them think they do. Companies like his do nothing to circumvent the normal background checks required to make a purchase.

I see.

There's no background check: Anybody that has a murder conviction can simply log on, e-mail someone, meet them in a parking lot and buy a freaking AK-47

~ Steve Barborini, a former supervisor for the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/02/ ... 328823221/

You really have no idea what you're talking about. The "villain" of your first story is an online dealer that can only ship to a FFL, who must then run a background check. No one's avoiding a background check by dealing with him.

The second story refers to something like a Craigslist for guns. It's simply a way of arranging private sales. Nothing is bought or sold online.

So you are OK with no background checks for all online sales and support the NRA's blocking legislation that would require it? Not that background checks actually work, as you rightly point out in the "villain's" case.