RE: Shooting in California

RE: Shooting in California (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Lucylastic -> RE: Shooting in California (12/3/2015 7:46:28 PM)
Police said the pair carried two assault rifles, two handguns and more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition, and wore masks and tactical gear. They also left a set of three pipe bombs attached to a remote-controlled car at the scene of the shooting, though Burguan said Thursday that they were never detonated. He said all four guns were purchased legally. https://twitter.com/sbcountysheriff/status/672594046313861120/photo/1

kdsub -> RE: Shooting in California (12/3/2015 7:46:29 PM)
Yes me...bet your life on it... that and common sense Butch

BamaD -> RE: Shooting in California (12/3/2015 7:49:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub The odds are a lot less with bird shot...a lot less than with a rifle or handgun... I can tell you that more than on CHILD has been killed...THIS YEAR alone in the hell hole of North ST. Louis with rounds that have penetrated walls and killed them in their homes... NOT ONE SHOTGUN DEATH WAS RECORDED. Butch And you have a source to cite for this conclusion, yes? Home defense experts will agree that bird shot is less likely to penetrate a wall than slugs or buck, and less likely than most rifle or pistol rounds. Of course that is of questionable advantage if they have any cover at all. What would be concelment with a .45 (or buckshot) it cover for birdshot. However if you can be sure they are standing in the open birdshot works quite well, if you are withing 10-15 feet. Everything is a tradeoff.

ifmaz -> RE: Shooting in California (12/3/2015 8:05:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Yes me...bet your life on it... that and common sense Butch I'm not quite that trusting, especially when one cannot cite a single source. I've found several sources that disagree with your conclusion and question the use of birdshot in a self-defense situation.

BamaD -> RE: Shooting in California (12/3/2015 8:28:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Yes me...bet your life on it... that and common sense Butch I'm not quite that trusting, especially when one cannot cite a single source. I've found several sources that disagree with your conclusion and question the use of birdshot in a self-defense situation. As I said there are tradeoffs. I prefer a shotgun inside the house, but I use 00. I wouldn't be shooting in the direction of my family so penetration wouldn't be a problem. It stands to reason that bird shot will have less penetration, but I can see that stopping power would be a problem, besides he says that a person would have to be an idiot to resist.

ifmaz -> RE: Shooting in California (12/3/2015 8:37:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD As I said there are tradeoffs. I prefer a shotgun inside the house, but I use 00. I wouldn't be shooting in the direction of my family so penetration wouldn't be a problem. It stands to reason that bird shot will have less penetration, but I can see that stopping power would be a problem, besides he says that a person would have to be an idiot to resist. I'm not trusting my life to ~5 rounds of birdshot against two meth heads.

BamaD -> RE: Shooting in California (12/3/2015 8:50:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ifmaz quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD As I said there are tradeoffs. I prefer a shotgun inside the house, but I use 00. I wouldn't be shooting in the direction of my family so penetration wouldn't be a problem. It stands to reason that bird shot will have less penetration, but I can see that stopping power would be a problem, besides he says that a person would have to be an idiot to resist. I'm not trusting my life to ~5 rounds of birdshot against two meth heads. Me either, two loads of 00 followed by 11 .45 acps.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Shooting in California (12/3/2015 10:35:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And he should use what suits him. How do you know he has the use of both hands? Then he would have to use one of those evil pistols. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! I thought we hadn't spoken in a while? Michael

Greta75 -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 12:55:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thompsonx It would seem that only occures in your peurile imagination As I said, I know what I can flaunt and wear without getting arrested by real experiences from living here all my life and not by theory like you love to use as your evidence. You can interprete that how-ever you want, but we Singaporeans know the limits are simply not flashing boobs or private parts and are comfortable dressing like that in public spaces if we wanted to with zero worries at all. And besides you are completely out of point since I talk about women not getting molested IF they even walked naked. And you are insisting dressing skimpily is illegal. So if a police arrest a naked woman, that's not molesting or raping her BTW! Infact I guarantee they will send female police because the male police are afraid of being accused of molest.

thompsonx -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 3:41:59 AM)
ORIGINAL: Greta75 ORIGINAL: thompsonx It would seem that only occures in your peurile imagination As I said, I know what I can flaunt and wear without getting arrested by real experiences from living here all my life and not by theory like you love to use as your evidence. The evidence shows that you have never been to singapore let alone live there.

BamaD -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 7:31:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD And he should use what suits him. How do you know he has the use of both hands? Then he would have to use one of those evil pistols. Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! I thought we hadn't spoken in a while? Michael We haven't.

Aylee -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 7:52:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Police said the pair carried two assault rifles, two handguns and more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition, and wore masks and tactical gear. They also left a set of three pipe bombs attached to a remote-controlled car at the scene of the shooting, though Burguan said Thursday that they were never detonated. He said all four guns were purchased legally. https://twitter.com/sbcountysheriff/status/672594046313861120/photo/1 ATF says that the guns were illegal in California. The shooters used weapons they did not purchase (sounds like a straw purchase or illegal transfer). The shooters modified guns to accept high-capacity magazines. The shooters modified guns for automatic fire. But what does the ATF know? The narrative says that the guns were perfectly legal and that is why we need to change the laws. http://www.wsj.com/articles/rifles-used-in-san-bernardino-shooting-illegal-under-state-law-1449201057?mod=e2fb While they were originally sold legally, with magazine locking devices commonly known as bullet buttons, the rifles were subsequently altered in different ways to make them more powerful, according to Meredith Davis, a special agent with the ATF. The Smith & Wesson rifle was changed in an attempt to enable it fire in fully automatic mode, while the DPMS weapon was modified to use a large-capacity magazine, she said. Those alterations made the weapons unlawful under California’s ban on assault weapons, which bans guns with magazines that can detach for quick reloading. The state legally allows the sale and ownership of assault weapons that have fixed magazines.

BamaD -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 7:59:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Police said the pair carried two assault rifles, two handguns and more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition, and wore masks and tactical gear. They also left a set of three pipe bombs attached to a remote-controlled car at the scene of the shooting, though Burguan said Thursday that they were never detonated. He said all four guns were purchased legally. https://twitter.com/sbcountysheriff/status/672594046313861120/photo/1 A rifle, a handgun, and 800 rounds of amunition, how did they move?

tweakabelle -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 8:22:08 AM)
The BBC World News is reporting the discovery of a video recorded by the female allegedly swearing allegiance to IS. It seems that more and more evidence is pointing towards this incident having some terrorist motivation. At this stage, the police and FBI are still not making this attribution publicly.

mnottertail -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 8:26:16 AM)
27 rounds of AK weighs a pound. Dont know what cal these were, havent been keeping up, but 800 rounds would weigh 30 pounds, so not at all undoable. I take shits bigger than that.

BamaD -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 8:29:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle The BBC World News is reporting the discovery of a video recorded by the female allegedly swearing allegiance to IS. It seems that more and more evidence is pointing towards this incident having some terrorist motivation. At this stage, the police and FBI are still not making this attribution publicly. It took 3-4 years before they would admit that Fort Hood was terrorism.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 8:32:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Police said the pair carried two assault rifles, two handguns and more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition, and wore masks and tactical gear. They also left a set of three pipe bombs attached to a remote-controlled car at the scene of the shooting, though Burguan said Thursday that they were never detonated. He said all four guns were purchased legally. https://twitter.com/sbcountysheriff/status/672594046313861120/photo/1 ATF says that the guns were illegal in California. The shooters used weapons they did not purchase (sounds like a straw purchase or illegal transfer). The shooters modified guns to accept high-capacity magazines. The shooters modified guns for automatic fire. But what does the ATF know? The narrative says that the guns were perfectly legal and that is why we need to change the laws. http://www.wsj.com/articles/rifles-used-in-san-bernardino-shooting-illegal-under-state-law-1449201057?mod=e2fb While they were originally sold legally, with magazine locking devices commonly known as bullet buttons, the rifles were subsequently altered in different ways to make them more powerful, according to Meredith Davis, a special agent with the ATF. The Smith & Wesson rifle was changed in an attempt to enable it fire in fully automatic mode, while the DPMS weapon was modified to use a large-capacity magazine, she said. Those alterations made the weapons unlawful under California’s ban on assault weapons, which bans guns with magazines that can detach for quick reloading. The state legally allows the sale and ownership of assault weapons that have fixed magazines. Actually...they didn't even bother to purchase the "assault-style" weapons they used. They got them from a "friend" (hmm...suppose he was one of the ME men rumored to have been hanging around the couple's apartment the last several weeks?) and then illegally modified them (I'm sure they did all that on their own, too). So...this young couple did all this, nullifying California's strict control laws, but still...we must crack down harder on the law-abiders.

tweakabelle -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 8:40:57 AM)
It must be comforting to gun lovers to learn that the law is being applied equally to all, and that it's just as easy for would-be terrorists to arm themselves to the teeth as it is for any one else in the USA. Just in case there is any doubt about this, the GOP has announced its opposition to a bill banning weapons to people on the 'no-fly list'. Source I must admit I find it confusing that the US is prepared to sell guns to people it won't allow on planes because of their known or suspected links to terrorism. But apparently this is a big blow for freedom as it is understood in certain circles in the USA.

thompsonx -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 8:47:29 AM)
ORIGINAL: BamaD It took 3-4 years before they would admit that Fort Hood was terrorism. How many years did it take to discover that the gulf of tonkin incident never happened...only @60,000 body bags full of dead americans?????

Lucylastic -> RE: Shooting in California (12/4/2015 8:48:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Police said the pair carried two assault rifles, two handguns and more than 1,600 rounds of ammunition, and wore masks and tactical gear. They also left a set of three pipe bombs attached to a remote-controlled car at the scene of the shooting, though Burguan said Thursday that they were never detonated. He said all four guns were purchased legally. https://twitter.com/sbcountysheriff/status/672594046313861120/photo/1 ATF says that the guns were illegal in California. The shooters used weapons they did not purchase (sounds like a straw purchase or illegal transfer). The shooters modified guns to accept high-capacity magazines. The shooters modified guns for automatic fire. But what does the ATF know? The narrative says that the guns were perfectly legal and that is why we need to change the laws. http://www.wsj.com/articles/rifles-used-in-san-bernardino-shooting-illegal-under-state-law-1449201057?mod=e2fb While they were originally sold legally, with magazine locking devices commonly known as bullet buttons, the rifles were subsequently altered in different ways to make them more powerful, according to Meredith Davis, a special agent with the ATF. The Smith & Wesson rifle was changed in an attempt to enable it fire in fully automatic mode, while the DPMS weapon was modified to use a large-capacity magazine, she said. Those alterations made the weapons unlawful under California’s ban on assault weapons, which bans guns with magazines that can detach for quick reloading. The state legally allows the sale and ownership of assault weapons that have fixed magazines. I dunno, what does the ATF know???? so they broke the law by changing them, even tho they purchased them legally from somewhere, colour me surprised. Lots of people modify their guns apparently. Thank you for the extra information

Page: << < prev 6 7 [8] 9 10 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875