GUNS!

lightbringer

TOL Subscriber
I get a bit extreme in my love of firearms as well as the 2nd Amendment, but I believe in being prepared. I hope, as lightbringer commented earlier, that it never comes to a point where we are asked to give up our 2nd Amendment rights.

I understand that paranoia always has some foundation in reality, but it really comes down to whether or not a law or "executive decision" (aka law-sans-lawmakers) will be enforced.

I've known many police officers over the years, and NONE of them are anything but extreme gun enthusiasts, just as proud of their right to protect themselves at home as they are of protecting others in their chosen profession.

Same thing with soldiers, assuming the president was ever idiotic enough to use the military for domestic law enforcement.

Thus, I don't get too worked up about rumors of the 2nd Amendment going the way of the dodo.

There are many things I am uncertain about, but there are a few that I know beyond a doubt will take place;

Death

Taxes

Police organizations training and equipping their personnel as tactical strike forces.

The military being used in domestic law enforcement, it has happen a couple times ( Kent State and New Orleans just off the top of my head) and will in the future be used in a larger scale event. There will always be some fool willing to punch the panic button!

During the aftermath of Katrina I had to drive through New Orleans every two weeks. In that situation the military does not see American Citizens traveling, but as possible threats/terrorists (I can understand that to a point, especially since I'm a retired Marine) but it wasn't a good feeling, thinking that one day it could be very possible for our military to march into town, under orders, and remove weapons from homes. We (the gun owners/American Citizens) will not be seen as citizens but as potential threats to their lives and enemy activists.

The rewrite of the 2nd Amendment restricting private ownership of weapons...what I'm not sure about is the when, where and casualty rate.

Not one to fall for or follow conspiracy theories but has any one thought that the so called FEMA Camps may be for temporary internment of those that do not willingly give up their weapons when the government finally calls for them?
 

aCultureWarrior

BANNED
Banned
LIFETIME MEMBER
I see that that anti-gun folk are up to their old tricks and playing up the murder of a National Park Ranger to push their agenda:

MOUNT RAINIER NATIONAL PARK, Washington (AP) — An armed Iraq War veteran suspected of killing a Mount Rainier National Park ranger managed to evade snowshoe-wearing SWAT teams and dogs on his trail for nearly a day. He couldn't, however, escape the cold.

A plane searching the remote wilderness for Benjamin Colton Barnes, 24, on Monday discovered his body lying partially submerged in an icy, snowy mountain creek with snow banks standing several feet high on either side.

"He was wearing T-shirt, a pair of jeans and one tennis shoe. That was it," Pierce County Sheriff's spokesman Ed Troyer said.

Barnes did not have any external wounds and appears to have died from the elements, he said. A medical examiner was at the scene to determine the cause of death. Troyer said two weapons were recovered, but he declined to say where they were located.

According to police and court documents, Barnes had a troubled transition to civilian life, with accusations in a child custody dispute that he suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder following his Iraq deployments and was suicidal.

The mother of his toddler daughter sought a temporary restraining order against him, according to court documents.

She alleged that he got easily irritated, angry and depressed and kept an arsenal of weapons in his home. She wrote that she feared for the child's safety. Undated photos provided by police showed a shirtless, tattooed Barnes brandishing two large weapons.

The woman told authorities Barnes was suicidal and possibly suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder after deploying to Iraq in 2007-2008, and had once sent her a text message saying "I want to die."

In November 2011, a guardian ad litem recommended parenting and communication classes for both parents as well as a visitation schedule for Barnes until he completed evaluations for domestic violence and mental health and complied with treatment recommendations.

Barnes is believed to have fled to the remote park on Sunday to hide after an earlier shooting at a New Year's house party near Seattle that wounded four, two critically. Authorities suspect he then fatally shot ranger Margaret Anderson.

Immediately after the park shooting, police cleared out Mount Rainier of visitors and mounted a manhunt.

Fear that tourists could be caught in the crossfire in a shootout with Barnes prompted officials to hold more than a 100 people at the visitors' center before evacuating them in the middle of the night.

Late Sunday, police said Barnes was a suspect in another shooting incident.

On New Year's, there was an argument at a house party in Skyway, south of Seattle, and gunfire erupted, police said. Barnes was connected to the shooting, said Sgt. Cindi West, King County Sheriff's spokeswoman.

Police believe Barnes headed to the remote park wilderness to "hide out" following the Skyway shooting.

"The speculation is that he may have come up here, specifically for that reason, to get away," parks spokesman Kevin Bacher told reporters early Monday. "The speculation is he threw some stuff in the car and headed up here to hide out."

Anderson had set up a roadblock Sunday morning to stop a man who had blown through a checkpoint rangers use to check if vehicles have tire chains for winter conditions. A gunman opened fire on her before she was able to exit her vehicle, authorities say.

Before fleeing, the gunman fired shots at both Anderson and the ranger that trailed him, but only Anderson was hit.

Anderson would have been armed, as she was one of the rangers tasked with law enforcement, Bacher said. Troyer said she was shot before she had even got out of the vehicle.

Park superintendent Randy King said Anderson, a 34-year-old mother of two young girls who was married to another Rainier ranger, had served as a park ranger for about four years.

King said Anderson's husband also was working as a ranger elsewhere in the park at the time of the shooting.

The shooting renewed debate about a federal law that made it legal for people to take loaded weapons into national parks. The 2010 law made possession of firearms subject to state gun laws.

Bill Wade, the outgoing chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, said Congress should be regretting its decision.

"The many congressmen and senators that voted for the legislation that allowed loaded weapons to be brought into the parks ought to be feeling pretty bad right now," Wade said.

Wade called Sunday's fatal shooting a tragedy that could have been prevented. He hopes Congress will reconsider the law that took effect in early 2010, but doubts that will happen in today's political climate.


Calls and emails to the National Rifle Association requesting comment were not immediately returned on Monday.

The NRA said media fears of gun violence in parks were unlikely to be realized, the NRA wrote in a statement about the law after it went into effect. "The new law affects firearms possession, not use," it said.

The group pushed for the law saying people have a right to defend themselves against park animals and other people.

King said the park would remain closed Tuesday as the investigation continued and the rangers grieve the loss of their colleague.

"We have been through a horrific experience," King said. "We're going to need a little time to regroup."
http://news.yahoo.com/police-body-found-us-park-gunman-224005459.html

A guy shoots three people in Seattle and liberals thinks he's going to obey laws that restrict firearms in a National Park?

Liberalism truly is a mental disorder.
 

TomO

Get used to it.
Hall of Fame
Gotta admit that anyone who thinks the park firearm restriction would have made any difference here has gotta be rollin' with a special kind of stupid. :plain:
 

vegascowboy

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
I never thought I'd ever say this (ever), but I think I want a Barbie.

At least this kind. :D


f-M4-Sopmod-8722.jpg
 

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
If you are talking about defending yourself, the 9 is marginal at best. There are too many examples of people being shot with 9mm and not going down, and not ceasing to shoot back.

That may be, in part, because there are too many people running around with FMJ ammo in their 9mm

I have a buddy who's primary carry weapon is a
.22 LR. He is convinced that, due to the low recoil he can put more shots on target in less time, giving him the advantage. I'm a bit of a bigger is better sort of a guy myself. That's why my first choice for defense is 000 buck!
 
Last edited:

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
It isn't exactly that I have anything against a .9mm...I own one myself as a matter of fact. I suppose it depends on what said person intends to use it for.

I have just never been keen on trusting my life or the life of my family to one. To me, they are to iffy.

The reason I cotton to the .40 calibur is that they have, in my opinon, the stopping power of a .45 and the speed and accuracy of a .9mm.
My .45 is plenty accurate and the recoil is not as abrupt as a .40 or even a 9mm, allowing me to stay on target really well.
 

TomO

Get used to it.
Hall of Fame
That may be, in part, because there are too many people running around with FMJ ammo in their 9mm

^^^^
This...but with anything shot placement is king. :plain:

I have a buddy who's primary carry weapon is a
.22 LR. He is convinced that, due to the low recoil he can put more shots on target in less time, giving him the advantage. I'm a bit of a bigger is better sort of a guy myself. That's why my first choice for defense is 000 buck!

:think: Yeah...I know people like that too. To me that's taking things to the extreme. Make no mistake, I'm well aware the .22LR is plenty able to kill with good shot placement (case in point).....but penetration is too iffy and energy too limited IMHO to consider it an adequate defensive round; (.380ACP is as small as I go and that is only for deep concealment; like for going to the gym or something). It's not a matter of how much lead you put into the target to stop an immediate threat but rather where the lead goes. Regarding an enraged violent opponent I'll take one good ocular cavity hit with a +P 9mm HP any day over a high cap. mag dump into center mass with a .22LR.


....of course if you just hate being bothered carrying a gun and a .22LR is the only one you will be bothered with; it's better than the 9mm or .45 which stays in the safe. :idunno:
 

lightbringer

TOL Subscriber
^^^^
This...but with anything shot placement is king. :plain:

I'll take one good ocular cavity hit with a +P 9mm HP any day over a high cap. mag dump into center mass with a .22LR.

If a .22LR is the only one you will be bothered with; it's better than the 9mm or .45 which stays in the safe. :idunno:

:thumb: I always look forward to your posts Tom, simple and to the point with comments that entice your readers to do some research.

:chuckle: Ocular Cavity :confused: I can imagine there have been a few frantic Google searches.

I have gotten a few comments when I'm on the range shooting at a silhouette/man target...."your shooting right"! "you're no where near center of mass"! Then it usually dawns on them that I'm not attempting to shoot at the nice little 10X ring in the center.

Seems there are not many actually shooting to stop a man but instead are just shooting to hit the target, the problem I see is that when it is time to fire in self defense people will fall back on what they practice!

Now back to your first post...shot placement is king!

Ocular Cavity hit...shuts down the electrical impulse control of your target. 90/98% of these hits ends the battle instantly.

Thoracic Cavity hit...causes a loss of hydraulic pressure in most cases and takes time for the target to become immobilized/stopped, but many hits in this area pass through without hitting a vital organ.

How long would you want to wait for your target to stop firring back at you? I would imagine the answer would be, prior to him making an Ocular Cavity hit...:p:chuckle:
 

TomO

Get used to it.
Hall of Fame
:thumb: I always look forward to your posts Tom, simple and to the point with comments that entice your readers to do some research.

:chuckle: Ocular Cavity :confused: I can imagine there have been a few frantic Google searches.

I have gotten a few comments when I'm on the range shooting at a silhouette/man target...."your shooting right"! "you're no where near center of mass"! Then it usually dawns on them that I'm not attempting to shoot at the nice little 10X ring in the center.

Seems there are not many actually shooting to stop a man but instead are just shooting to hit the target, the problem I see is that when it is time to fire in self defense people will fall back on what they practice!

Now back to your first post...shot placement is king!

Ocular Cavity hit...shuts down the electrical impulse control of your target. 90/98% of these hits ends the battle instantly.

Thoracic Cavity hit...causes a loss of hydraulic pressure in most cases and takes time for the target to become immobilized/stopped, but many hits in this area pass through without hitting a vital organ.

How long would you want to wait for your target to stop firring back at you? I would imagine the answer would be, prior to him making an Ocular Cavity hit...:p:chuckle:



If you really want to mess with their heads stand there and do Mozambique Drills all day. :chuckle:
 

vegascowboy

New member
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
:thumb: I always look forward to your posts Tom, simple and to the point with comments that entice your readers to do some research.

:chuckle: Ocular Cavity :confused: I can imagine there have been a few frantic Google searches.

I have gotten a few comments when I'm on the range shooting at a silhouette/man target...."your shooting right"! "you're no where near center of mass"! Then it usually dawns on them that I'm not attempting to shoot at the nice little 10X ring in the center.

Seems there are not many actually shooting to stop a man but instead are just shooting to hit the target, the problem I see is that when it is time to fire in self defense people will fall back on what they practice!

Now back to your first post...shot placement is king!

Ocular Cavity hit...shuts down the electrical impulse control of your target. 90/98% of these hits ends the battle instantly.

Thoracic Cavity hit...causes a loss of hydraulic pressure in most cases and takes time for the target to become immobilized/stopped, but many hits in this area pass through without hitting a vital organ.

How long would you want to wait for your target to stop firring back at you? I would imagine the answer would be, prior to him making an Ocular Cavity hit...:p:chuckle:

All this talk of ocular cavities puts brings to my mind some advice given to Woodrow and Augustus in Larry McMurtry's books when they were young Texas Rangers. One of the older Rangers advises them that, lest they be subject to merciless torture at the hands of Apache or Comanche captors, they should shoot themselves in the eye. He said this (not the chest or the temple or the roof of the mouth) was the best place to insure a quick death.
 

lightbringer

TOL Subscriber
If you really want to mess with their heads stand there and do Mozambique Drills all day. :chuckle:

:thumb: Yes sir you're right.

All of my shooting now days is done on Monday, early morning, when no one else is around...range rules and all....my club doesn't allow (and I agree, some members scare me just being on the firing line) for draw and fire due to safety factors? But we don't have closed circuit cameras installed...yet! Unfortunately they are coming in the near future...had some LEO's run live fire training scenarios that ended up shooting a cinder block wall leaving a number of the blocks in little pieces?

I did get a private question on the ocular cavity hit...."what if he isn't facing you"? :rotfl:

I guess I should have explained in more detail, for an ocular cavity aiming point, imagine a 3 inch band running the circumference of the head (visual ref: just above the eyes to just below the nose), any penetrating hit (front, side or back) in this area stops the target.
 

lightbringer

TOL Subscriber
All this talk of ocular cavities puts brings to my mind some advice given to Woodrow and Augustus in Larry McMurtry's books when they were young Texas Rangers. One of the older Rangers advises them that, lest they be subject to merciless torture at the hands of Apache or Comanche captors, they should shoot themselves in the eye. He said this (not the chest or the temple or the roof of the mouth) was the best place to insure a quick death.

We watch the same type stuff!? Them Texas Rangers were smart fellers. :p Indians, what Indians?
 

lightbringer

TOL Subscriber
For years my husband and I each had a .45 auto in Glock 21 by our beds (headboard), and two Mark 11 mod 0's muzzle down leaning on the mattress headboard junction on each side of the bed. Since Crane has done the research on the 5.7 round and its effectiveness against targets with body armor, and a host of other live shooting data, we have replaced the .45 glocks with FN 5.7's similar to a modified USG model. 20 rounds of 5.7 in a magazine is hard to beat in a handgun, especially when going up against targets wearing 3A or better.

How and where did you get the SS190/SS191 ammo for the FN 5.7?
 

TomO

Get used to it.
Hall of Fame
For years my husband and I each had a .45 auto in Glock 21 by our beds (headboard), and two Mark 11 mod 0's muzzle down leaning on the mattress headboard junction on each side of the bed. Since Crane has done the research on the 5.7 round and its effectiveness against targets with body armor, and a host of other live shooting data, we have replaced the .45 glocks with FN 5.7's similar to a modified USG model. 20 rounds of 5.7 in a magazine is hard to beat in a handgun, especially when going up against targets wearing 3A or better.



Yeah.....22WMR is pretty cool. :plain:

image_e63dfb23-d170-4a1d-be88-96c60e45bb8f.png
 

lightbringer

TOL Subscriber
The 190 round is a steel penetrator tip, and only sold to Government and L.E. legally.

I am aware of that.

Specifications:

Function: service ball round
Bullet Type: FMJ
Tip Color: none
Weight of Projectile: 31 gr.
Muzzle Velocity: 2133 fps
Muzzle Energy: 313 ft-lbs

You don't want that round though, you can hand load much better stuff.

Where are you getting the penetrator tips?

You did imply that was why you changed guns (45 cals) on the bed post, because the 5.7 was able to penetrate armor?

Even though I do enjoy shooting my FN 5.7, I still prefer my 1911A1.
 
Last edited:

Delmar

Patron Saint of SMACK
LIFETIME MEMBER
Hall of Fame
The 190 round is a steel penetrator tip, and only sold to Government and L.E. legally.

Specifications:

Function: service ball round
Bullet Type: FMJ
Tip Color: none
Weight of Projectile: 31 gr.
Muzzle Velocity: 2133 fps
Muzzle Energy: 313 ft-lbs



You don't want that round though, you can hand load much better stuff.

While I do hand load, I guess I am a bit more concerned with over penetration than I am with the likelihood of facing and enemy with body armor.
 
Top