Discussion of US gun laws

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Spacemanvic**

Frazzled:

After work, stopped by my LGS, picked up a 50 cal. ammo can for $5 AND bought a complete multical AR lower to make yet another EVIL BLACK GUN[.

Might make it with a .22 upper for the kids, or a 9MM carbine, havent decided which. I already reload for 9MM which has me thinking this is the route I wanna take.

Oh yeah, my LGS also became a Class III dealer this week as their BATFE paperwork came through. So they'll stock suppressors soon, as well as carry FA firearms. M16's will start around $17,000 each, UZIs will be the cheapest at $7,500 a pop. Im more interested in getting a can for my .243 which I can then use on my threaded 5.56 AR. Feeding an FA for me is cost prohibitive, so I'll probably look at the goodies, but thats about it.

That's the one thing I envy from the Euros, that suppressors arent that big of a deal there. Here, we have to pay a $200 stamp tax, go through a BATFE review, wait 4-9 months for the paperwork to process, THEN we can go to the store and pick up the can, starting for around $700. Not cheap.

Gunpowder crack is VERY addictive

**Wolfstan**

SOFDC wrote:
I don't know for sure but I think that none of the great gun killing sprees has been ended by a concerned citizen shooting the perpetrator.

Why would they be? A bit hard for a concerned citizen to carry in a no-carry zone.

....But there's been at least one school shooting stopped by a school admin going out to his car, retrieving a pistol, and confronting the shooter. (Pearl, Mississippi.)
....And been at least one instance of a handgun carrying CHL holder engaging an armored and rifle armed bad guy along with the police. (Tyler, Texas.)

Granted, neither of these fits your criteria, because in the first, the culprit wasn't shot, and in the latter case the baddie was not stopped after being shot in the chest twice.

20 untrained members of the general public responded.

This is where your argument crashed and burned. To get a CHL in Colorado, and indeed almost every state that allows someone to carry a firearm concealed, you must have -some- form of training or verifiable experience in shooting (And that doesn't mean "I shoot wrecked cars in the rock quarry!".)

Odds are very much against that any of those 20 gun owners are SWAT trained or are Special Forces,

Perhaps, but odds are anyone that was serious enough to get a CHL in the first place has been trained by or next to a Mil/LEO type, to say nothing of any other shooting experience. While I don't want to say that taking a 1-day pistol class with a ranger just back from his third round in the middle east will prepare you to get dropped out of a C130 to raid some mountainside bunkers in afghanistan, we are talking about something just a little bit more intensive than "Heres da sights, now pull this curvy bit real gentle like."

One of the twenty gun owners is fortunate enough to see a muzzle flash and targets the lunatic and responds, unfortunately another gun owner dosen't see the original muzzle flash, but sees the response of the other gun owner. The domino effect starts and chaos develops.

Someone want to explain to me why I am firing at muzzle flashes when I know damn good and well (And so will anyone issued a CHL) that this behavior WILL result in a vibrant alternative sex life for decades on end and a 3x9 cage as a -best case- outcome? Better still, if my only way to detect my attacker is by his firing (Where is my weapon light? Where is the surefire I keep? Where is the giant freaking LED light on a cell phone I can activate at arms length for a moment if it comes to that last ditch effort?) why am I attempting to return fire in favor of getting the hell out of there? Either he can see me, and I can't see him...in which case I need to be gone before I am shot, or He can't see me, and I can't see Him...in which case, I need to be gone, and not giving him something concrete to shoot at.

Secondly, if I -CAN- detect the firer by something other than muzzle flash, I am sure my first instinct will be to shoot the man in street clothes with a handgun that IS NOT pointed in my general direction, rather than the freakishly bright red haired man who is screaming "I AM THE JOKER!" and wearing body armor, carrying a rifle, shotgun, AND handgun that ARE pointed in my general direction.

The scenario you present not only requires a complete lack of training or experience, but a total disregard for the subjects desire to both not be shot and not be jailed.

You see that's what is so scary. Dealing with the situation that happened is still way above your paygrade. You and all the other potential gun owners are not trained. You think that the training that you have is suitable and that is scary. Knowing how to handle your gun and common sense does not make you someone I would trust in this situation. Scoffing at me because I said "muzzle flash" (which is a generalisation on mybehalf to make a point) is a pointless statement, because even if you are some self trained expert, the other gun owners aren't likely to be, which means it could turn into a bloodfest in record time.

Your reference to a guy going and getitng his gun out of the car comes under my first two examples. It's daylight, people can see your actions and you are likely to get a clear shot at the lunatic (lets skip the part that a rent a cop or a real cop turns up just as you turn a corner with a gun in your hand), so you have a better chance of stopping the lunatic.

The Genie is well out of the bottle concerning weapons in the US and I think all you will ever be able to do is firefight it.

Now obviously this is the thoughts of some weak kneed, limp wristed, pinko Brit (as I think most Yanks tend to think of us concerning guns), but to me the part about being able to "bare arms", means you can defend yourself. This was from an era that used black powder weapons, from a generaton that could of never envisaged the weapons we now have, so I would imagine that they would of thought having mulitple automatic handguns, semi automatic rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition could be a little bit over the top!!!

**Spacemanvic**

Wolfstan wrote:You see that's what is so scary. Dealing with the situation that happened is still way above your paygrade. You and all the other potential gun owners are not trained. You think that the training that you have is suitable and that is scary. Knowing how to handle your gun and common sense does not make you someone I would trust in this situation. Scoffing at me because I said "muzzle flash" (which is a generalisation on mybehalf to make a point) is a pointless statement, because even if you are some self trained expert, the other gun owners aren't likely to be, which means it could turn into a bloodfest in record time.

Your reference to a guy going and getitng his gun out of the car comes under my first two examples. It's daylight, people can see your actions and you are likely to get a clear shot at the lunatic (lets skip the part that a rent a cop or a real cop turns up just as you turn a corner with a gun in your hand), so you have a better chance of stopping the lunatic.

The Genie is well out of the bottle concerning weapons in the US and I think all you will ever be able to do is firefight it.

Now obviously this is the thoughts of some weak kneed, limp wristed, pinko Brit (as I think most Yanks tend to think of us concerning guns), but to me the part about being able to "bare arms", means you can defend yourself. This was from an era that used black powder weapons, from a generaton that could of never envisaged the weapons we now have, so I would imagine that they would of thought having mulitple automatic handguns, semi automatic rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition could be a little bit over the top!!!

American citizens dont believe that things out of our "paygrade" are beyond our scope. Wish I could say the same about the person occupying the White House.

As to the rest of your opinionated post, you are making grand assumptions and feeding a stereotype some Americans have about Brits. Which is a damn shame as I think upon Rorke's Rift, the Falklands, the Battle over Britain and the UKs lock step with us in many past and current military actions. Id always thought of the Brits as thick headed can do types (rugby players).

It's a shame that some in Great Britain see events as out of their hands and better left to others to handle.

**kronk**

Wolfstan wrote:

Interesting point, but let me add this into the mix. I see there has been a huge increase in gun ownership in Colorado due to the killings. A knee jerk reaction to what happened at the cinema. What really scares me is that pototenrially in a cinema holding 200 people, 20 of those people could now be armed. Mr or Mrs lunatic turns up and starts blasting away... anyone see how this is going to turn out? Shall I put it in black & white for you?

I think you're jumping to the wrong conclusion.

The recent up-tick in gun sales in Colorado isn't people wanting guns to take to the movies, dinner, the theater, or a comedy club to protect themselves.

It's a knee jerk reaction of people thinking there will be stricter gun-control bills being passed, on the state or federal level. It's people that were on the fence about owning a gun taking the plunge now, while they can avoid future "hurdles." Whether that's something that will come to pass or not will remain to be seen.

**A Town Called Malus**

We believe in letting those who have been trained to do something, do it. In Rourke's Drift that was the army, in the Falklands that was the combined forces of Royal Navy, Army and RAF, in the Battle of Britain it was the RAF.

The people who want to do it join these forces. If they want to enforce the law they join the police. We don't want some wannabe vigilante with a pistol wandering around.

If some nut goes on the rampage with a gun here we expect the police to handle it, it is their job after all. Why should we want an unarmoured civilian with a pistol to face a mad gunman over a team of police officers wearing kevlar and armed with MP5s? One of those has been extensively trained and the other has not, which is more likely to result in unnecessary casualties?

**Wolfstan**

Spacemanvic wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:You see that's what is so scary. Dealing with the situation that happened is still way above your paygrade. You and all the other potential gun owners are not trained. You think that the training that you have is suitable and that is scary. Knowing how to handle your gun and common sense does not make you someone I would trust in this situation. Scoffing at me because I said "muzzle flash" (which is a generalisation on mybehalf to make a point) is a pointless statement, because even if you are some self trained expert, the other gun owners aren't likely to be, which means it could turn into a bloodfest in record time.

Your reference to a guy going and getitng his gun out of the car comes under my first two examples. It's daylight, people can see your actions and you are likely to get a clear shot at the lunatic (lets skip the part that a rent a cop or a real cop turns up just as you turn a corner with a gun in your hand), so you have a better chance of stopping the lunatic.

The Genie is well out of the bottle concerning weapons in the US and I think all you will ever be able to do is firefight it.

Now obviously this is the thoughts of some weak kneed, limp wristed, pinko Brit (as I think most Yanks tend to think of us concerning guns), but to me the part about being able to "bare arms", means you can defend yourself. This was from an era that used black powder weapons, from a generaton that could of never envisaged the weapons we now have, so I would imagine that they would of thought having mulitple automatic handguns, semi automatic rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition could be a little bit over the top!!!

American citizens dont believe that things out of our "paygrade" are beyond our scope. Wish I could say the same about the person occupying the White House. As to the rest of your opinionated post, you are making grand assumptions and feeding a stereotype we Americans have about Brits.

Way to go!!

And you are doing the same for Americans.

You will defend your right to "bare arms" without evening thinking that "too many" is a statement worth reflecting on. You are also taking the statement of "above your paygrade" and twisting it. Having a system that allows some kid from a single parent, poor and deprived neighbourhood make it as the Captain in a SWAT team, CEO of the board or even President is what your refering to, which is one of the great things about the US. My reference means that wouldn't even trust a Marine in that situation if there was the risk of other less trained individuals in the same room with weapons.

Lets change the scenaro a little. Lets say that two US Marshals are there at the cinema, both for some reason both are carrying a concealed weapon. One is in the same room as the lunatic another is either in another room or outside.

The lunatic lets rip, what follows?

The Marshal in the same cinema starts to react at the same time as the rest of the general public. All those moving bodies stop him from moving towards the lunatic

The Marshal in the same cinema manages to see where he thinks the lunatic is and draws his weapon. A have ago hero panics and thinks he's the lunatic and attacks him

The Marshal who is outside reacts and makes his way into the room, weapon drawn. The other Marshal finally manages to fight his way through the crowd and sees an outlined figure with a weapon drawn

The Marshal who is outside reacts and makes his way into the room, weapon drawn. Meanwhile the Marshal in the cinema thinks he has a target and pulls the trigger, just as the other Marshal comes into view and is trying to make sense of it, now automatically targetting the other Marshal.

This is a list of basic scenarios based on professionals being involved, just how bad do you think it would be if you added in people who don't do this for a living and are using their own "common sense"?

**Spacemanvic**

Based on what just happened in Colorado, following the anti-gun mantra, Id say at least the victims would have had a chance at protecting themselves.

**SilverMK2**

At least they check ID's when you try to buy beer at the age of 20, even if they don't care who buys guns

**MrMerlin**

Wolfstan wrote:
Spacemanvic wrote:
Wolfstan wrote:You see that's what is so scary. Dealing with the situation that happened is still way above your paygrade. You and all the other potential gun owners are not trained. You think that the training that you have is suitable and that is scary. Knowing how to handle your gun and common sense does not make you someone I would trust in this situation. Scoffing at me because I said "muzzle flash" (which is a generalisation on mybehalf to make a point) is a pointless statement, because even if you are some self trained expert, the other gun owners aren't likely to be, which means it could turn into a bloodfest in record time.

Your reference to a guy going and getitng his gun out of the car comes under my first two examples. It's daylight, people can see your actions and you are likely to get a clear shot at the lunatic (lets skip the part that a rent a cop or a real cop turns up just as you turn a corner with a gun in your hand), so you have a better chance of stopping the lunatic.

The Genie is well out of the bottle concerning weapons in the US and I think all you will ever be able to do is firefight it.

Now obviously this is the thoughts of some weak kneed, limp wristed, pinko Brit (as I think most Yanks tend to think of us concerning guns), but to me the part about being able to "bare arms", means you can defend yourself. This was from an era that used black powder weapons, from a generaton that could of never envisaged the weapons we now have, so I would imagine that they would of thought having mulitple automatic handguns, semi automatic rifles and thousands of rounds of ammunition could be a little bit over the top!!!

American citizens dont believe that things out of our "paygrade" are beyond our scope. Wish I could say the same about the person occupying the White House. As to the rest of your opinionated post, you are making grand assumptions and feeding a stereotype we Americans have about Brits.

Way to go!!

And you are doing the same for Americans.

You will defend your right to "bare arms" without evening thinking that "too many" is a statement worth reflecting on. You are also taking the statement of "above your paygrade" and twisting it. Having a system that allows some kid from a single parent, poor and deprived neighbourhood make it as the Captain in a SWAT team, CEO of the board or even President is what your refering to, which is one of the great things about the US. My reference means that wouldn't even trust a Marine in that situation if there was the risk of other less trained individuals in the same room with weapons.

Lets change the scenaro a little. Lets say that two US Marshals are there at the cinema, both for some reason both are carrying a concealed weapon. One is in the same room as the lunatic another is either in another room or outside.

The lunatic lets rip, what follows?

The Marshal in the same cinema starts to react at the same time as the rest of the general public. All those moving bodies stop him from moving towards the lunatic

The Marshal in the same cinema manages to see where he thinks the lunatic is and draws his weapon. A have ago hero panics and thinks he's the lunatic and attacks him

The Marshal who is outside reacts and makes his way into the room, weapon drawn. The other Marshal finally manages to fight his way through the crowd and sees an outlined figure with a weapon drawn

The Marshal who is outside reacts and makes his way into the room, weapon drawn. Meanwhile the Marshal in the cinema thinks he has a target and pulls the trigger, just as the other Marshal comes into view and is trying to make sense of it, now automatically targetting the other Marshal.

This is a list of basic scenarios based on professionals being involved, just how bad do you think it would be if you added in people who don't do this for a living and are using their own "common sense"?

And the people in the cinema only see another gunman entering the room and totally panic.... maybe run back towards the actual maniac, etc. etc. etc....

So, instead of arming civillians, which may just cause more mayhem in a case like this , why doen't someone just make it harder for lunatics to buy guns?!?

**Kilkrazy**

Spacemanvic wrote:Based on what just happened in Colorado, following the anti-gun mantra, Id say at least the victims would have had a chance at protecting themselves.

They wouldn't because the cinema had a no guns policy.

Which is the case of many locations where mass shootings happen.

**Grey Templar**

You oviously havn't been in many Movie Theatres. Its not so dark that you can see whats going on. A cursory glance around will easily verify whose shooting people. And one second later the shooter is simultaniously riddled with rounds from a dozen seperate firearms.

**A Town Called Malus**

Grey Templar wrote:You oviously havn't been in many Movie Theatres. Its not so dark that you can see whats going on. A cursory glance around will easily verify whose shooting people. And one second later the shooter is simultaniously riddled with rounds from a dozen seperate firearms.

Except the Theatre was also full of Tear Gas.

**Grey Templar**

Which isn't going to happen in the bulk of shootings. How many mass murderers are going to get their hands on tear gas?

This guy was prepared. Nothing could have really stopped that.

**A Town Called Malus**

Grey Templar wrote:Which isn't going to happen in the bulk of shootings. How many mass murderers are going to get their hands on tear gas?

This guy was prepared. Nothing could have really stopped that.

Well considering that the Batman one did, it obviously isn't too hard to get your hands on tear gas.

**SilverMK2**

A free canister of tear gas with every 100 rounds? BARGIN!

**Lynata**

Grey Templar wrote:A cursory glance around will easily verify whose shooting people. And one second later the shooter is simultaniously riddled with rounds from a dozen seperate firearms.

Whilst of course everyone stays perfectly still in their seats instead of jumping up and trying to get away like a headless chicken, moving themselves and others before the dozen barrels. Or freezing in shock because they didn't expect anything like this to happen and have to take a moment to realize what's going on. All the while the cool heroic citizens with their guns have no problem keeping their calm and accurately shooting over the heads of a dozen other human beings to hit a shooter it took "a cursory glance" to identify.

Yeah, right.

Also, according to witness reports, this theater was dark.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

As somebody mentioned earlier, the cinema was full of tear gas, there was lots of people running around in a panic, it was dark, the shooter had a bullet proof vest etc etc. The T-800 would have struggled to pick out the shooter, never mind average joe citizen.

As I've mentioned before, due to previous miltary service, I'm more qualified than most on this site to comment on gun battles. Even with training, even with friends backing you up, being shot at is not nice!!!
Imagine if the situation was slightly different and that one or two people were armed and decided to return fire. Chances are, these people would not have been in a combat situation before, or even had so much as a parking ticket. Their hands are sweaty, heart is beating like a drum, tunnel vision kicks in and their wrestling with morality i.e can I take a life? You want people like that returning fire in a packed cinema

I don't blame people for running to the exit. Some people rise above this, they don't think, they just shoot, because survival instincts are strong. but IMO people without training or experience in that kind of situation would make it worse. They would kill the wrong person or get killed themselves.

But despite what I said, people should still be able to defend their shops and homes and shoot down crooks threatning their lives. If it's 3am and somebody bursts into my house wanting to rob the place, and they're packing a pistol, you bet your ass I want to return fire!!! In this regard, the Americans have got it spot on!

**Wolfstan**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:As somebody mentioned earlier, the cinema was full of tear gas, there was lots of people running around in a panic, it was dark, the shooter had a bullet proof vest etc etc. The T-800 would have struggled to pick out the shooter, never mind average joe citizen.

As I've mentioned before, due to previous miltary service, I'm more qualified than most on this site to comment on gun battles. Even with training, even with friends backing you up, being shot at is not nice!!!
Imagine if the situation was slightly different and that one or two people were armed and decided to return fire. Chances are, these people would not have been in a combat situation before, or even had so much as a parking ticket. Their hands are sweaty, heart is beating like a drum, tunnel vision kicks in and their wrestling with morality i.e can I take a life? You want people like that returning fire in a packed cinema I don't blame people for running to the exit. Some people rise above this, they don't think, they just shoot, because survival instincts are strong. but IMO people without training or experience in that kind of situation would make it worse. They would kill the wrong person or get killed themselves.

But despite what I said, people should still be able to defend their shops and homes and shoot down crooks threatning their lives. If it's 3am and somebody bursts into my house wanting to rob the place, and they're packing a pistol, you bet your ass I want to return fire!!! In this regard, the Americans have got it spot on!

Thank you. It's what I was trying to get across but appeared to be failing badly

**Jihadin**

As I've mentioned before, due to previous miltary service, I'm more qualified than most on this site to comment on gun battles. Even with training, even with friends backing you up, being shot at is not nice!!!
Imagine if the situation was slightly different and that one or two people were armed and decided to return fire. Chances are, these people would not have been in a combat situation before, or even had so much as a parking ticket. Their hands are sweaty, heart is beating like a drum, tunnel vision kicks in and their wrestling with morality i.e can I take a life? You want people like that returning fire in a packed cinema I don't blame people for running to the exit. Some people rise above this, they don't think, they just shoot, because survival instincts are strong. but IMO people without training or experience in that kind of situation would make it worse. They would kill the wrong person or get killed themselves.

Its "Living in the moment" If two individuals were armed in there and were actually trying to identify the shooter more likely one or both will have the weapon in the firing position. The other shooter (good guy) spots the other good guy and see's the weapon out the shooter either shoots the shoots the good guy or is shot in return. The other problem with that is firing discipline. One round or the entire mag...half mag whatever is going to be cut loose in a crowded theatre room. The other issue is CS gas. One of the effect is your eye's are stinging/tearing out like mad and not to include snot running out your nose in a flood. That would not be a good time to spot a shooter because misidentification is going to happen.

Just curious but was there a stage below the screen? I thought I seen somewhere he ran across stage shooting.

**Do_I_Not_Like_That**

The CS gas added a whole new dimension to the idea of fog of war! All in all though, the scene would have been mass panic and utter confusion. Even the professionals would likely have f****d up!

**Spacemanvic**

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:As somebody mentioned earlier, the cinema was full of tear gas, there was lots of people running around in a panic, it was dark, the shooter had a bullet proof vest etc etc. The T-800 would have struggled to pick out the shooter, never mind average joe citizen.

As I've mentioned before, due to previous miltary service, I'm more qualified than most on this site to comment on gun battles. Even with training, even with friends backing you up, being shot at is not nice!!!
Imagine if the situation was slightly different and that one or two people were armed and decided to return fire. Chances are, these people would not have been in a combat situation before, or even had so much as a parking ticket. Their hands are sweaty, heart is beating like a drum, tunnel vision kicks in and their wrestling with morality i.e can I take a life? You want people like that returning fire in a packed cinema I don't blame people for running to the exit. Some people rise above this, they don't think, they just shoot, because survival instincts are strong. but IMO people without training or experience in that kind of situation would make it worse. They would kill the wrong person or get killed themselves.

But despite what I said, people should still be able to defend their shops and homes and shoot down crooks threatning their lives. If it's 3am and somebody bursts into my house wanting to rob the place, and they're packing a pistol, you bet your ass I want to return fire!!! In this regard, the Americans have got it spot on!

God Bless you! There's an Englishman left!

**youbedead**

Spacemanvic wrote:
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:As somebody mentioned earlier, the cinema was full of tear gas, there was lots of people running around in a panic, it was dark, the shooter had a bullet proof vest etc etc. The T-800 would have struggled to pick out the shooter, never mind average joe citizen.

As I've mentioned before, due to previous miltary service, I'm more qualified than most on this site to comment on gun battles. Even with training, even with friends backing you up, being shot at is not nice!!!
Imagine if the situation was slightly different and that one or two people were armed and decided to return fire. Chances are, these people would not have been in a combat situation before, or even had so much as a parking ticket. Their hands are sweaty, heart is beating like a drum, tunnel vision kicks in and their wrestling with morality i.e can I take a life? You want people like that returning fire in a packed cinema I don't blame people for running to the exit. Some people rise above this, they don't think, they just shoot, because survival instincts are strong. but IMO people without training or experience in that kind of situation would make it worse. They would kill the wrong person or get killed themselves.

But despite what I said, people should still be able to defend their shops and homes and shoot down crooks threatning their lives. If it's 3am and somebody bursts into my house wanting to rob the place, and they're packing a pistol, you bet your ass I want to return fire!!! In this regard, the Americans have got it spot on!

God Bless you! There's an Englishman left!

Either your blind or not comprehending the other guys posts, he never said that you should lose all your guns, he said that having armed civilians in that situation would not have helped and would have likely been detrimental. As multiple people have said there is jack gak you can do in that environment especially if the bad guy is wearing body armour.

**Jihadin**

Curious though on the body armor. What type it was. I know you can go on ebay and get IBA's/IOTV's with plates. Same as we use in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since AP rounds are illegal then regular ball rounds not going to stop him.

Also if the was shot down by a another "good shooter" and there was a significant pause between first set rounds taking him down and then a 2nd set of rounds putting him down then the "good guy" just committed murder. Its a "double tap"

**Spacemanvic**

Jihadin wrote:Curious though on the body armor. What type it was. I know you can go on ebay and get IBA's/IOTV's with plates. Same as we use in Iraq and Afghanistan. Since AP rounds are illegal then regular ball rounds not going to stop him.

Also if the was shot down by a another "good shooter" and there was a significant pause between first set rounds taking him down and then a 2nd set of rounds putting him down then the "good guy" just committed murder. Its a "double tap"

Reports so far say Level 2 armor.

A fast round, like say a 40cal ball or hot 10MM ball could penetrate that level. If the round doesnt penetrate, it can cause damage still, quite a bit through kinetic energy. A vest works best against hollow point SD ammo, ball ammo would give it a run for its money.

You can get XM855 62 grain ammo in 556. Thats penetrator. I have about 3k rounds of that from Lake City and 2k of 55gr loaded, with another 1800 ready to be loaded. I do alot of target practice, reloading helps alot

As soon as I get the Colt 10MM from my cousin, Ill have to reload for that as well. Right now I reload for 223 Remington, 8MM Mauser, 3030 Winchester, 243 Winchester and 9MM Luger.

**Grey Templar**

True, this situation is way different because the guy had some much junk. Most mass killers arn't going to get body armor and tear gas. This is definitly atypical.

**Jihadin**

True, this situation is way different because the guy had some much junk. Most mass killers arn't going to get body armor and tear gas. This is definitly atypical.

Last time something of this caliber on being armed and with body armor was 1997 LA bank robbery shootout. Yes the movie Heat was got involved in that on inspiration

**Kaldor**

Spacemanvic wrote:American citizens dont believe that things out of our "paygrade" are beyond our scope.

What kind of idiot attempts to resolve a lethal situation when they lack the requisite experience or qualifications.

That's the equivalent of getting the cleaner at the hospital to do open heart surgery. Because hey, just because he's not qualified or experienced doesn't mean it's beyond his scope, right?

**Wolfstan**

Some interesting stuff in an Independant article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-ak47s-dont-belong-on-the-streets-7979471.html

A couple of things things that stood out to me were:

At the top of the wish-list of the gun control lobby would be the reinstatement of the Bill Clinton-era national ban on assault weapons, such as AK-47s, that was allowed to expire by Congress in 2004 during the George Bush presidency. As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, passed a law banning some assault-weapons including the kind that the suspect in the Colorado shooting is alleged to have used.

But speaking to NBC News upon his arrival in London on Wednesday, Mr Romney, with an eye to conservatives at home, took a different tack to Mr Obama.

“We can sometimes hope that just changing a law will make all bad things go away,” he suggested. “It won’t.” Mr Romney wrongly said in the interview that the guns used by the Colorado gunman were obtained illegally, which they were not.

Which if true is a shame as it would appear common sense goes out the window if it could lose you votes, which again is scary that there enough people in the US that think this way that you have please them.

Then there is this:

Victims struggle with hospital bills

The political fall-out from the Denver cinema massacre is not just about gun control. Several of the critically wounded will struggle to pay their medical bills because they are among the 50 million uninsured people in America.

President Obama’s healthcare overhaul aims to roughly halve that number; Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal it. While hospitals in the US are obliged by law to stabilise critically ill patients even if they can’t pay, there is no such requirement for longer term treatment such as that many of the Colorado victims will need.

A fund-raising effort to help those victims without insurance is under way. Warner Bros, which made the Batman film, has donated $2m (£1.3m) and three hospitals treating the wounded will limit or forgive bills.

In fairness there appears to be some help for the victims, but seriously? "We've removed the bullets and stopped the bleeding, anything else wil cost $$$$"

**Bromsy**

Wolfstan wrote:Some interesting stuff in an Independant article: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/obama-ak47s-dont-belong-on-the-streets-7979471.html

A couple of things things that stood out to me were:

At the top of the wish-list of the gun control lobby would be the reinstatement of the Bill Clinton-era national ban on assault weapons, such as AK-47s, that was allowed to expire by Congress in 2004 during the George Bush presidency. As Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee, passed a law banning some assault-weapons including the kind that the suspect in the Colorado shooting is alleged to have used.

But speaking to NBC News upon his arrival in London on Wednesday, Mr Romney, with an eye to conservatives at home, took a different tack to Mr Obama.

“We can sometimes hope that just changing a law will make all bad things go away,” he suggested. “It won’t.” Mr Romney wrongly said in the interview that the guns used by the Colorado gunman were obtained illegally, which they were not.

Which if true is a shame as it would appear common sense goes out the window if it could lose you votes, which again is scary that there enough people in the US that think this way that you have please them.

Then there is this:

Victims struggle with hospital bills

The political fall-out from the Denver cinema massacre is not just about gun control. Several of the critically wounded will struggle to pay their medical bills because they are among the 50 million uninsured people in America.

President Obama’s healthcare overhaul aims to roughly halve that number; Mitt Romney has vowed to repeal it. While hospitals in the US are obliged by law to stabilise critically ill patients even if they can’t pay, there is no such requirement for longer term treatment such as that many of the Colorado victims will need.

A fund-raising effort to help those victims without insurance is under way. Warner Bros, which made the Batman film, has donated $2m (£1.3m) and three hospitals treating the wounded will limit or forgive bills.

In fairness there appears to be some help for the victims, but seriously? "We've removed the bullets and stopped the bleeding, anything else wil cost $$$$"

Well, yes, things cost money. They aren't going to pull the sutures and untie the tourniquets because your check bounced, but you will get a bill at some point.

**SilverMK2**

Have to say I really can't quite get the American outlook on life. To be frank, I am quite glad of that in many ways.