Gun Control in the Socialist Republic of Kahlifornia

  • Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Mikhail Kalashnikov

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 19, 2006
173
0
0
well bender 711, its not exactly cake to raise a gun and fire at a target in a crowded airplane filled with countless other passengers that could get hit because you shoot before you get a good mark on the bastard.
 

{YBBS}Sage

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 15, 2006
1,338
0
0
Oberst Freitag said:
when are you going to need an automatic rifle? WHne the chinamen invade? Thast the only thing i can think off...Self Defense is a joke...a shotgun is a much more useful self-defense tool.

I live in NY which is also has some strict gun laws but luckily im in upstate nY which isnt too bad...i have some shotguns and rifles that i use for hunting and thats it. I dont sport shoot...the only time im not shooting for hunting is when im sighting them in before deer season.

But i support gun laws to an extent...to me the Assault Weapons ban is a joke because of what htey classify as an AR...it menas practically nothing...i would hope they eventually fix it and make it more realistic. As much as some of you are pro-gun...there is need for some of these laws....yes for the most part people who buy these guns are going to be safe with them and wont commit armed robberies...but chances are they can be stolen from the owners and used in said crimes...and that leaves the local pd at a disadvantage.

Just look at the Norht Hollywood shootout...the california legislature has every right to enact those laws after that incident...

First off, my local police have no disadvantage, because they train in and equip officers with semi-auto, "civvied" M4s. I think they use DPMS, but don't quote me on it.

Second, the "Hollywood shootout" came AFTER the ban. Original PRK AR ban was enacted in 1989, then was "upgraded" in 1999, with .50 BMG rifles being banned in 2004 (literally, after some knee-jerking idiot watched the scene in that crap movie "SWAT" where the helicopter gets shot down by a *ahem* silenced .50 rifle.) The shootout happened in North Hollywood was in 1997. The shootout was NOT stopped, nor would it have been, by any weapons ban. In fact, they might have found it EASIER to do in light of the ban. Let's face it: try that crap in Texas, someone's gonna pop out of their door and blast you with a rifle.

The info on the ban and shootout:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_control_in_the_United_States_%28by_state%29#California
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_hollywood_shootout

(ok, so the post is a little behind... whatever)

Oh, and to whoever it was that said that shotgun slugs won't penetrate body armor:

It depends partly on the slug used, and on the armor used. In either event, unless they're wearing a plate, and you hit said plate, if you hit someone in the chest with a 12 gauge slug, even if it doesn't "defeat" their armor, it's going to cause a LOT of bluntforce trauma. As in breaking ribs kind of trauma. It will still knock someone down (but not across the street like in movies.)

So why aren't we outlawing body armor? After all, wearing that body armor, they could have whooped on the cops with .22 pistols.

Bender: guns and pressurized aircraft cabins don't mix well. Air Marshals use low-velocity ammo and train in marksmanship in the hopes of avoiding a miss and avoiding having bullets over-penetrate. A bullet goes through that fuselage and everybody could die. Explosive decompression is not a good thing...
 

Musketeer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 21, 2006
389
0
0
Oberst Freitag said:
yes...but you're still not thinking it through...these people would have their guns out first and wouldnt hesitate to shoot...the civilains would probably hesitate shooting someone

True but the advantage of having a concealed handgun is the criminal does not know it is there. He will have to focus his attention elsewhere at some time. That is when you do the smart thing and shoot him in the back. This is not Hollywood and the only fair gunfight is the one that you win.

As far as hessitating, being able and being willing are two different things. I am willing, others may not be. That is an individual decision but it is no man's right to make it for another.
 

Musketeer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 21, 2006
389
0
0
{YBBS}Sage said:
Bender: guns and pressurized aircraft cabins don't mix well. Air Marshals use low-velocity ammo and train in marksmanship in the hopes of avoiding a miss and avoiding having bullets over-penetrate. A bullet goes through that fuselage and everybody could die. Explosive decompression is not a good thing...

The low penetration ammo used by the Air Marshals has nothing to do with not going through the aircraft. It is thin aluminum sheet with plastic molding for an interior. Any bullet is going to zip right through. The ammunition is to minimize the chance of overpenetrating the target or any acctientally hit passengers. Hitting a passenger is a real possiblity and an accepted risk but it would be good that if that accidental round that hits one passenger doesn't punch right through and hit a second... LIekwise with hits on the terrorist in question.

The plane is not going to explosively decompress from bullet holes. You will rapidly being to loose cabin pressure and the air will thin out fast. Oxygen masks will drop, it will get very loud and the pilot will immediately decend to a lower altitude.

Nobody is going to be sucked out of holes in the airplane, fuselage sections are not going to tear off, and the plane is not going to crash. Take an SMG and make the aircraft look like Swiss Cheese and the plane will still not "Explosively Decompress" like something out of science fiction. Damgae to aircraft systems is a concern but that is why there are redundant systems. People who do not get oxygen will pass out and if the pilot did not descend they may die after some time. That is why there are oxygen masks. FYI I have a BS in Aerospace Engineering from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University so I knw a littel about planes even though I am no longer directly tied into the industry.
 

Musketeer

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 21, 2006
389
0
0
{YBBS}Sage said:
Oh, and to whoever it was that said that shotgun slugs won't penetrate body armor:

It depends partly on the slug used, and on the armor used. In either event, unless they're wearing a plate, and you hit said plate, if you hit someone in the chest with a 12 gauge slug, even if it doesn't "defeat" their armor, it's going to cause a LOT of bluntforce trauma. As in breaking ribs kind of trauma. It will still knock someone down (but not across the street like in movies.)

You are coorect, ammo selection comes into play and older vests may not stand up to some of the more high powerred sabot rounds. Still slugs are generally poor performers against kevlar becasue they are such large rounds. The problem is while they have great eneregy and momenum they also have a very large surface area that disperses that energy.

Even without penetrating getting hit is going to hurt, alot. I doubt though it will stop a target, especially ones like the bank robbers in question. Adrenaline and shock will keep them moving. One was shot in the leg and continued on I believe.
 

Bender711

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 12, 2006
22
0
0
ANd they tested explosive decompression on Myth Busters and it didnt work like Holly Wood, like most things (if not all) things.
 
Last edited:

{YBBS}Sage

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 15, 2006
1,338
0
0
Musketeer said:
Nobody is going to be sucked out of holes in the airplane, fuselage sections are not going to tear off, and the plane is not going to crash. Take an SMG and make the aircraft look like Swiss Cheese and the plane will still not "Explosively Decompress" like something out of science fiction. Damgae to aircraft systems is a concern but that is why there are redundant systems. People who do not get oxygen will pass out and if the pilot did not descend they may die after some time. That is why there are oxygen masks. FYI I have a BS in Aerospace Engineering from Embry Riddle Aeronautical University so I knw a littel about planes even though I am no longer directly tied into the industry.

Good to know. I didn't get that from movies, though. :p

Sure, one slug might not stop the target with blunt-force, but hit him 2 or 3 times, and it should.

Musketeer said:
True but the advantage of having a concealed handgun is the criminal does not know it is there. He will have to focus his attention elsewhere at some time. That is when you do the smart thing and shoot him in the back. This is not Hollywood and the only fair gunfight is the one that you win.

As far as hessitating, being able and being willing are two different things. I am willing, others may not be. That is an individual decision but it is no man's right to make it for another.

I've always felt the good thing about people being able to carry concealed is that the criminals are forced to assume everybody is carrying.

As far as the hesitation argument, I'm with you, but I don't think it's so much a willingness thing as it is training. I'm originally from Michigan, where they enacted a carry law a few years ago that requires training, both classroom and range (Pass the training, and have a clean psych and criminal record, and you got a license). I think that's a bit of a good thing, since it's going to help people react proplerly, with the correct mindset.

The mindset I heard from police my parents knew (my mom was a cop for a while) was this: "It's better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6." When in doubt: defend yourself. To live with your conscience, you have LIVE.
 

Oberst Freitag

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 19, 2006
329
0
0
Musketeer said:
True but the advantage of having a concealed handgun is the criminal does not know it is there. He will have to focus his attention elsewhere at some time. That is when you do the smart thing and shoot him in the back. This is not Hollywood and the only fair gunfight is the one that you win.

As far as hessitating, being able and being willing are two different things. I am willing, others may not be. That is an individual decision but it is no man's right to make it for another.
problem is, is that few people have a CCW license...and the chances of them being the ones on those particular planes is slim to nill
 

[CiA]Stiletto

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
845
1
0
If they're legal citizens with CHLs...well...tough. You can't do anything about nutjobs existing.

That aside, if there's a nutjob on the plane with a gun, it's best if there are good guys on the plane with guns or at least guts and grappling skills.
 

Oberst Freitag

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 19, 2006
329
0
0
Bender711 said:
And no one has awnsered how the bad guys on the plane would have a CCW.
they dont need one...because they're terrorists and i highly doubt that they would pay attention to laws like the CCW...

you really should think through things
 

Bender711

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 12, 2006
22
0
0
Ok, they are still going to be searched at the airport. And if they dont have a concealed carry licence (and they have a concealed weapon) they will be arrested.
So again, you've havent thought things through nearly far enough.
 

[CiA]Stiletto

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
845
1
0
Bender711 said:
Ok, they are still going to be searched at the airport. And if they dont have a concealed carry licence (and they have a concealed weapon) they will be arrested.
So again, you've havent thought things through nearly far enough.
You have entirely too much faith in the security of airports. o_O

Ever hear of the Anarchangel? He's somewhat big on the libertarian/gun-nut side side of the blogosphere. He's a security consultant.

His words: sneaking guns into aircraft is so trivially easy, it can be done by accident .
 

Oberst Freitag

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 19, 2006
329
0
0
[CiA]Stiletto said:
You have entirely too much faith in the security of airports. o_O

Ever hear of the Anarchangel? He's somewhat big on the libertarian/gun-nut side side of the blogosphere. He's a security consultant.

His words: sneaking guns into aircraft is so trivially easy, it can be done by accident .
QFT...even after 9/11 airport secruity is still a joke
 

Bender711

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 12, 2006
22
0
0
Im not saying that getting a gun on a plane is hard. But that just proves that we can't keep the bad guys from having guns on planes, so why should we keep the good guys from having them?
 

The Soup Nazi

FNG / Fresh Meat
Mar 10, 2006
257
0
0
Because in order to embrace gun control, one must throw logic and sensible thinking out of the window and forsake the usage of the left side of the brain.
 

{YBBS}Sage

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 15, 2006
1,338
0
0
The Soup Nazi said:
Because in order to embrace gun control, one must throw logic and sensible thinking out of the window and forsake the usage of the left side of the brain.

You're always pretty impressive with how you word your responses. It's great.

Glad we see eye-to-eye on this issue. I'd hate to be against you. :p
 

BuddyLee

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 12, 2006
2,088
20
0
NCC 1701-D Neutral Zone
[-project.rattus-] said:
I might add that everyone who has a fully automated handgun is trained the proper way to handle it. They are not sold in Walmarts to random, but IIRC, they get it when they serve their obligatory time in the swiss army, and thus know that an automatic weapon is no toy to play around with.

And concerning "protection": I bet a pepperspray or another non-lethal weapon does the very same thing, without the risk of killing yourself, someone other, or losing beloved ones in an accident.

Oh, and the "foreign enemies" part is a very nice anarchronism, just like the 2nd amendment... which was added when the threat of a british invasion (King George?) was a very real one... But please tell me one single other occasion where privately owned guns fended off such a "foreign enemy"...
Enemies forien and domestic, meaning if there is ever a need for another Revolution, our people would have the means to overthrow a corrupt government. That is just as important as keeping king george at bay.
 

{YBBS}Sage

FNG / Fresh Meat
Apr 15, 2006
1,338
0
0
BuddyLee said:
Enemies forien and domestic, meaning if there is ever a need for another Revolution, our people would have the means to overthrow a corrupt government. That is just as important as keeping king george at bay.

Heh, keeping "King George" at bay might not be too far from the mark. :p

The way I look at the Constitution, the First and Second Amendments (#1 = Right to speak your mind, #2 = Right to own MILITARY-grade arms) are the most important ones (duh, that's why they're numbered 1 and 2), they guarantee that the other Amendments aren't used as so much toilet paper.
 

[CiA]Stiletto

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 22, 2005
845
1
0
Pretty much. You can't enforce the First without the Second, and you can't protect the Second without the First. The rest can be handled by ad libbing as people get pissed off and start killing off dumbassed government figures, but are better handled by legislation since we already know (yes, KNOW...name one functional government other than a revolution or individual fiat that has increased citizen power without coercion ) that government always attempts to reduce citizen power.