havoc996

*** Educate yourself on tactics and training before making a statement that to anyone who has said training makes you look uneducated as far as mil/leo engagements are concerned. Once you decide to use deadly force you shoot until the threat is eliminated. Rarely if ever is one shot enough from a handgun. There are cases of FBI agents being killed by men who have already been shot 5 or more times. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_FBI_Miami_shootout There is a lot we can learn from this story and the outcome is tragic beyond words, but to be focusing on the police officer and not the worthless, life sucking FELON who instigated this whole thing is mind boggling. It is easy to sit here afterwards and say this or should have that. This officer was confronted with a situation that most will never experience and he volunteered for this job. He already has to live with an outcome I am sure was his worst nightmare. I can tell you first hand that in life and death situations people due crazy things. EXAMPLE: I once went to a house fire where a woman was standing outside with a box of fruity pebbles. That's what she grabbed running out of the house. I've seen guys who are highly trained in combat freeze up in a firefight. The first time I was ever shot at I sat up and looked around and was in the process of asking if we were being shot at when I was yanked down by an NCO. We have all read AAR's of incidents involving jumpers on here and chimed in. I usually don't say much in those cases as my experience level is relatively low in the skydiving world. It is easy after the fact to say what was smart and what was not. We all also know that when the ground is rushing towards you, you do not have the luxury of breaking every little detail down and weighing all potential ramifications of your actions. Instead we react as skydivers in a spit second in an effort to save our lives! That is exactly what happened here except the choice he made ended the life of the hostage. His decisions where made in an effort to save the lives of all involved minus the felon. The felon claimed he was going to kill the hostage as he pointed a weapon at the officer. What exactly should this officer have waited for? The gun to go off? Be pointed back at the head of his hostage? I have no interest in your opinion until I see some real thought going into it. It's clearly emotionally driven and completely lacking in real world experience or education on the subject. It would be a lot like me commenting on swooping technique with my WHOPPING 50 jumps. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

Keep pictures and any threats you have in writing and get to LEO NOW! Don't wait on something like this. Seeing the signs just before an act of violence can be very hard and people often second guess themselves. I am pro gun but also have extensive MIL/LEO background. You need to get the ball rolling on this right now. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

They Must be defective. Apparently all of mine are defective too. However mine have been used to defend myself and my country. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

It can be... because you are advertizing to the criminal that you have a weapon. Which is why officers are also trained in weapon retention. But I'm sure you know that. I'm sure you can see the difference in someone being armed and nobody knowing versus someone open carrying which makes them a potential target. For instance I never leave a firing range without a loaded weapon because criminals have been known to go to ranges to acquire firearms by assaulting lawful gun owner since they cannot get the guns legally. If you cannot see the logic in this than you have never tried to know your adversary. The armed guard at a bank is a deterrent to robbery but also tells the robber to bring his own guns (preferably more of them and better ones) and subdue the guard FIRST because he is a known threat. As opposed to the off duty officer who can position him or herself and wait for the right time to reveal that they are a threat. If I have the element of surprise and the ability to set up the moment of contact then I have a formidable advantage and a much better chance at a positive outcome. Please tell me at least that makes sense to you? Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

I'm not sure exactly what this means. But I guess I better agree with it..... Forgive my misspelling it has been corrected. The point I was trying to make was that all of those things can be used for good or evil. It is the person behind the object that dictates how the object is used. Since Adam obtained the guns he used ILLEGALLY what good is another law? Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

And what is this constant comparison to nuclear weapons and cars? Use nuclear power to run machines or cities. OK Use nuclear power to deter invasion. OK Use nuclear power to invade and conquer. EVIL Use a car to drive to work. OK Use a car to transport kids and family on vacation. OK Use a car to try and run over a person. ATTEMPTED MURDER Use a gun to hunt. OK Use a gun for competition. OK Use a gun to defend yourself. OK Use a gun for murder. EVIL Any one of these objects has the ability to enrich and preserve life when used properly. They also have the ability to kill. I don't see how the comparison is at all relevant to the issue of a PSYCHOPATH killing school children. The PSYCHOPATH is the issue not the method with which he killed. How anyone can disagree with this doesn't make sense. If a pedophile lures children to meetings with a computer and then rapes and kills them we don't blame the computer. We shouldn't be blaming the gun. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

Good post I had forgotten this The type of ban the antis want already existed in CO yet Sandy Hook still happened And I gotta ask What makes one type of muzzel device makes a weapon more dangerous I'm interpreting your question because it didn't make much sense but I believe you mean what makes one muzzle device more lethal than another? There are muzzle devices made to do the best possible job at reducing the signature of the muzzle flash and making the shooter harder to pinpoint. this in military terms equates to soldier survivability. There are others that drastically reduce the recoil and keep the weapon on target for a more accurate and rapid follow up shot. You often see these type of muzzle devices on competition rifles. These types of devices do very little if anything to reduce the shooters signature though. There are some muzzle devices that claim to do both but most are fairly ineffectual at either job. That is the short answer. I have a brake that reduces flash very well The WCI brake I have is on both my 5.56 and my 6.5 Grendel I would argue that one does not do both well But to the point The rifle's ability is not increased or decreased by having a removable device One may do both ok but not as well as ones specifically designed for the purpose of reducing flash or reducing muzzle climb. the fsc5.56 does a fairly good job at both also. The only way a removable device or the ability to remove the device would in any way make a rifle more lethal is you could change them to tailor for the job the rifle is being used for. I however completely agree with you on this point. a pinned and welded FSC5.56 is no less lethal than a removable one. My offer on here was to educate those who are against firearms without knowing what it is they're against other than BAD BLACK GUNS. I assumed you knew what you were talking about with regard to firearms based on the way you were speaking in a previous post but a question is a question and I will answer it. We are arguing the same point I think, I hope however by reading the dialog between us maybe someone will learn something. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

Good post I had forgotten this The type of ban the antis want already existed in CO yet Sandy Hook still happened And I gotta ask What makes one type of muzzel device makes a weapon more dangerous I'm interpreting your question because it didn't make much sense but I believe you mean what makes one muzzle device more lethal than another? There are muzzle devices made to do the best possible job at reducing the signature of the muzzle flash and making the shooter harder to pinpoint. this in military terms equates to soldier survivability. There are others that drastically reduce the recoil and keep the weapon on target for a more accurate and rapid follow up shot. You often see these type of muzzle devices on competition rifles. These types of devices do very little if anything to reduce the shooters signature though. There are some muzzle devices that claim to do both but most are fairly ineffectual at either job. That is the short answer. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

which other of the amendments are you willing to discard for the "greater good"?? Explain CAREFULLY how requiring a background check violates the Constitution. In March 2010, John Patrick Bedell strolled up to the Pentagon and started shooting at two police officers with a semiautomatic handgun. Months before the attack, he tried to buy a gun in California but was denied, after a background check showed he had a documented history of mental illness. So Bedell instead went to neighboring Nevada, where gun laws are more lenient, and bought a 9mm handgun from a private seller who didn't have to check out his history. Seems a fairly obvious problem to me. He broke the law in doing that. The obvious problem is our inability to enforce the current laws we have. But I'm thinking that's not what you meant. What you meant was we need more laws even though we can't enforce the existing ones we have. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

Perhaps I missed it but has anybody brought up the fact that parts of the original ban are STILL in effect in Conn? You are not allowed to have a collapsible stock in Conn. Theoretically this is to increase the overall length of the weapon and make it less concealable. This however was not at all effective given the shooter at Sandy Hook didn't care about hiding the weapon. You also have to have whatever muzzle device is on your rifle permanently attached. The ban is not going to solve anything. Education and laws regarding securing firearms is a much more important area to look at. Homes are not adequate for securing firearms in and of themselves. A deadbolt is a joke and only serves as a deterrent. If you don't believe this ask any MIL/LEO/Firefighter and they will surely tell you just how quickly a deadbolt can be defeated. A safe is a necessity and one that is not easily moveable. Below are LAWS currently in effect and it should be noted that one of the few states with stricter laws than the majority is the state where the Sandy Hook MASSACRE happened. That added scrutiny did absolutely nothing to protect those people and children. For the record I would be happy to explain the difference between a CLIP and a MAGAZINE or answer any other questions regarding firearms that I am able. Educating the public is the first way to begin to tackle this problem. PM me if anyone has any questions regarding proper terminology or exactly what something is. I have seen so much misinformation pumped out of ALL news agencies lately and it is only fueling a fire that is dividing the country while the problem is getting none of the attention it so desperately needs. CALIFORNIA: fixed (Bullet Button) magazine configuration, and 10-Round Magazines CONNECTICUT: pinned and welded Muzzle Device, Fixed A2 Stock HAWAII: 10-Round Magazines MARYLAND: 20-Round Magazines MASSACHUSETTS: pinned and welded Muzzle Device, Fixed A2 Stock, 10-Round Magazines NEW JERSEY: pinned and welded Muzzle Device, Fixed A2 Stock, 10-Round Magazines NEW YORK: pinned and welded Muzzle Device, Fixed A2 Stock, 10-Round Magazines WASHINGTON: - No Short Barreled Rifles (SBR’s), or barrels less than 16.1” in total length. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

I've managed to get to retirement age without living in fear like you. You've managed to make it to retirement age because there are people out there who risk their lives and run towards the danger while you pretend it doesn't exist. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

Claim? Why would you say claim? We have laws against political assassination and bank robbery but those people and our money are protected by guns? If you don't think information can be dangerous then you really are lost. Hey lets post the drop off and pick up times of armored cars too. People want to know and it is our right to know. I've heard this list compared to sex offenders, except sex offenders BROKE THE LAW. These people went through the trouble to get a CCW legally. The homes that I would like to see are the owners of illegal firearms. Oh wait the people who have guns illegally (criminals) don't care about the law. If you think gun laws are going to stop a person intent on killing as many people as humanly possible why don't you try defending yourself against a wild animal with a law. These people are killers who have already decided that they don't care about the consequences. I respect everyone's opinion and their right to have it, but if you can't see the logic in this then you are no longer learning or being rational. "Hell is the impossibility of reason." Lastly, The element of surprise is a formidable advantage in combat or any life threatening situation. I'd prefer a burglar or thief or rapist to have no idea what is in my home until confronted with it. If they know what is in the home then then come more heavily armed and with more people. You obviously have no tactical knowledge whatsoever or are simply ignoring the blaring facts in order to push your agenda. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

More specific timeline (from

Has anyone been looking at the timelines for this recently? I know police response times are one of the reasons I own a gun. I was very surprised to see this though, especially on CNN. "At the police station, dispatchers began to take calls from inside the school. Authorities say the first emergency call about the shooting came in at "approximately" 9:30 a.m. "Sandy Hook school. Caller is indicating she thinks someone is shooting in the building," a dispatcher told fire and medical personnel, according to 911 tapes. Police and other first responders arrived on scene about 20 minutes after the first calls." http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2012/12/us/sandy-hook-timeline/index.html?iid=article_sidebar Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

AH well then "BAN MOTHERS!" Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

Quote "Why are you afraid to tell us what's in your closet? If you've done nothing wrong, you should have nothing to fear." Would you let everyone know you were carrying $1000.00 in cash around or do you tend to keep that quiet so as not to draw unwanted attention to yourself? Surely you see the logic in not announcing things like this to the planet for securities sake. Like I said I am willing to concede a good point from you but I'm wondering if you are willing to do the same here. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

I'm not afraid. The problem is that part of securing something is not announcing to everyone that it is there? The reason the president does not announce exactly what his route to and from a place is, or where and when with a timeline is for his protection. This is all intelligence that could potentially be used against him. I don't advertise that I have guns in order to keep them from falling into the hands of someone who can't get them legally. This is a practice in effect by law enforcement, our military and government, surely that makes sense. The MOTHER is the problem. She allowed someone who was not LEGALLY allowed to have a gun to get access to hers. That never should have happened. If I ran around saying ban mothers because of this it would be no different than running around saying ban guns because some psycho ILLEGALLY got a hold of firearms and MURDERED children. He didn't give a shit that MURDER is illegal, or that carrying a gun on school property is illegal, but if you ban guns you think he would have obeyed that law? really? If a teenager steals his parents car because they leave the keys right on a hook by the door. Then takes the car and goes and gets drunk with friends. After that he gets in a wreck where he kills all occupants in another car and his friends and himself in the car he is driving. Would you be blaming the car? No you wouldn't. As an adult anything we own that is acquired illegally due to our negligence should fall squarely on our shoulders whether it's guns, alcohol, prescription drugs, a vehicle or whatever. I have no problem being held accountable for MY negligence. You have to see the logic in that. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

How about better laws in place that hold the owner of a firearm responsible if used by someone else in the commission of a crime? I'm all for that. There are far to many gun owners who do not practice adequate gun safety and security. For those opposed to guns the laws being looked at like the assault weapons ban will not fix the problem. An assault rifle is much harder to conceal than a pistol and a well trained shooter can change a magazine in under a second. With all of the bans being discussed a shooter would still be able to have a handgun with as many ten round (magazines) as they wanted. Highly concealable and very effective. If a gun owner knew they could spend the rest of their lives in jail for murder because someone used their guns in the commission of a crime I'm sure a lot more of them would be properly secured. Let's fix this through education rather than ignorance. "clips, assault weapons clips" is movie slang. Clips haven't been used since WWII and yet mainstream media keeps using this term without a clue. It shows a total lack of knowledge about something people want banned. Let's learn about what we are talking about before we try and outlaw it. Any anti gunner out there know the difference between a clip and a magazine without googling it? Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

I payed with five years of my life. I have two pins and four screws and shrapnel in my leg so that we could live in a place where all of us could voice our opinion. Have you defended these rights? have you risked your life for this country? Are you saying that your money or the amount of money you pay in taxes actually equals more than what I payed with or was willing to pay with? I am a gun owner and proud to be one but am still willing to listen, admit when someone opposing me has a point, and believe that we all need to compromise. 1. Gun owners need to be held accountable. Your not getting to mine unless you can break into a 800 lb safe or take the one I carry off me. (you'd have to know I had it on me first of course). 2. I believe it is wrong in this country to hold any group accountable for the actions of a few. (this is what is happening here). I've owned guns since I was of legal age and have carried for over 17 years. I have never broken any gun laws and have actually been involved in a fatal shooting. 3. Adam's mother had concerns about his mental health. My guns are not available to anyone let alone someone I am concerned about. The failure is RIGHT HERE! All the gun laws in place did not allow this MURDERER to have a gun. I don't like speaking ill of the dead but HIS IRRESPONSIBLE MOTHER DID. What I want to know from people who this gun laws will stop this is how does what this sicko did end up on my shoulders. that makes no sense. We guard our money better than we guard our children. we do this with guns. we guard our politicians with guns also. If guns were completely outlawed to you think our politicians would stop using security? would our banks and armored cars stop having armed guards? Heroin, cocaine, and many other drugs are ILLEGAL and yet prevalent and responsible for many more deaths in this country. They are also responsible for much of the crime to support the drug habit. As far as I know we are absolutely failing to stop the inflow of drugs into this country so why does anyone think that gun laws will stop guns from getting into the hands of someone hell bent on mass killing? I'm willing to listen and talk about this with people who oppose my opinion and will absolutely concede a good point from anyone if you are willing to do the same. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

"Sorry that burst your bubble, but life isn't as black and white as pro-gun and anti-gun." You didn't burst my bubble and the majority of my post was directed at the starter of this thread and not you. I apologize for my mistake. On a separate note Your statement about defending yourself with a firearm most likely getting you in trouble is exactly why I speak out when it comes to people trying to take away my rights to own a firearm. Why on earth would someone ever get in trouble for defending themselves? Who decides what is excessive force or whether or not your life was in danger? Having been in a justified fatal shooting myself I am well aware of the realities of such an event and the toll it takes on a person who survives it. It added MAJOR insult to what I was already going through when all of these questions were asked about my judgement and justification. I don't run around telling anyone they have to buy a gun or try and force them to do so and would appreciate it if people would stop running around trying to force me to give mine up because of there own personal feelings on this subject. Let those who don't like guns not own them and leave the rest of us who own guns for many reasons be. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

So you are in favour of allowing open containers of alcohol in a car? Are you in favour of allowing a person to drink their first beer of the day while they are driving? Those are all restrictions on possession of an object to prevent the act of a person. Are you in favour of changing those laws? Those are examples of objects being restricted in specific locations. By the way even for a legal carry conceal permit holder there are places that the owner still cannot legally carry. So in fact your examples here are no different than the fact that a legal CC owner cannot carry in any sort of fed building. If you are 21 years of age you can buy a handgun or beer. If you want to carry the gun concealed you have to pay money and get fingerprinted and then wait for the permit after a background check (3 months average depending on the state). If you want to carry a beer concealed no problem. Even after you have that permit you will never legally be able to carry in certain locations (same thing for beer) so how is your argument valid in the least? There are already more laws for firearm users than there are for beer and yet the number of drinking and driving fatalities exceeds the amount of firearm deaths each year. Know your enemy and get educated before you preach the banning of something you clearly know little about other than regurgitating things you have read in the news or heard on the INTARDWEB. My guess is you have very little if any knowledge of firearms and are just passionate about this due to a total lack of situational awareness. One of the main reasons I am not afraid of losing my right to keep and bear arms is because more often than not when the anti gun groups get into a real discussion about banning firearms their total lack of knowledge almost always tarnishes their argument. You have spouted off the same things in a few different threads now and nothing new has come out of your mouth other than (Ban them because they are bad) I'm paraphrasing of course. Yet you haven't once even considered another users point of view. I'm not making you buy a gun so why are you trying to affect my ability to get one? If you're afraid of those with guns then get one and learn how to defend yourself with it. If nobody has them you're always going to be a victim to any person or group of people who are bigger, stronger or more violent. There are NO guns in prisons and yet they are extremely violent places where deaths are not uncommon due to home made weapon constructed with everyday items. If you don't see a place for guns in our society then you obviously have nothing to do with any sort of job protecting others. If you know of another tool to protect yourself from multiple attackers I am open to it. With gang violence and their prevalence in our society today that is a real risk. oh and it's favor not "favour". Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

forcibly removing her is also "performing violence." But would be within the duties of the guards, though I do not see that she specifically violated any rule other than displaying inappropriate levity on hallowed ground. Ok one, We swear an oath to defend this country from our enemies both foreign and DOMESTIC. I don't see her as a domestic terrorist and would not forcibly remove her. However, How can you say she didn't violate any rules when the sign clearly states Silence AND RESPECT. She may not have yelled but she sure as hell showed no respect. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

Meh, I don't think making fun of a sign is that wrong. She just chose a poor location to do it. I see it in no different light than people making fun of people who have recently died. This forum and these boards are full of examples of people doing just that. People just get a little extra sensitive when it comes to the military. I for one don't believe she was giving the finger to dead soldiers. It's not just a sign. It's basic instructions to honor that place and what it represents. There were no people up in arms about her smoking next to a no smoking sign. Even she isn't making light of this and yet you still are instead of admitting this was not an exceptable thing to do. I would be just as upset if she did something like this at Auschwitz and I'm not Jewish. Freedom of speech does not give someone the right to be openly disrespectful to anyone. I will show respect for your dead and you do the same for me. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

There is acceptable and not acceptable. Our military are professionals and I expect them to act as such. The leadership often fails to instill this professionalism, but even in such a lax environment I find significantly less excuse for military operating outside of the bounds of professionalism and ROE than some civilian who is unbound by rules or the oath taken by all of us who served. I agree with this. Soldiers and Marines are doing a job and should be punished when not doing what they swore to do. Which they were. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.

I wonder what is more cowardly....making fun of a sign at the wrong place, or pissing on a corpse. That was just as wrong, so I don't see how it's relevant here. I'm going to assume by your posts that you've never served in the military and therefore have never seen the atrocities committed by America's enemies to their own people or our soldiers when captured unless it's reported on one of the major news channels. We could go back and forth all day about people doing wrongs on both sides but that doesn't excuse her actions which is what we are currently talking about. If you would like to discuss what those Marines did start a threat. Otherwise stop defending a woman who has openly admitted she was wrong. On a side note if you have ever had anyone try and kill you and were able to kill them instead and have some inkling into the emotions, Adrenalin, and feelings that come with that kind of experience I'd love to hear how you reacted when the fight was over. I've worked as a firefighter and an EMTI and have seen a person who's house was on fire running out of it with a box of cereal because in the moment that's what they felt was important. I find it ironic that many people with strong opinions that are anti military and war have never been in either and therefore are speaking with second hand knowledge and yet still think they know more about whats going on than the people who are actually there. I am quite sure that these dead soldiers never did anything to this woman and therefore fail to see how the actions of those Marines is in any way relevant to this discussion. 99% percent of the things I saw in both Iraq and Afghanistan committed by the enemy (to their own people) I won't even include the American soldiers, was so horrific! It wasn't allowed to be put on the news. I am not talking about things others told me happened I am talking about things I actually saw and people I actually spoke to. If these images and videos were allowed to be broadcast two things would happen. One, the general public would be traumatized for life and two, outrage would ensue. Now it would only be in the form of letters and emails and phone calls screaming for something to be done, but when those same people were asked to go fix it themselves I'm sure the majority would decide that voicing their opinion was as far as they were willing to take it. I will sit here and discuss all day with you our differences of opinion and we can part ways when it's over. If you think for one second the enemies of this country would afford you the same luxury I suggest you go talk to Daniel Pearl and see what he has to say about how they will treat you. By the way I think the video of him getting his head cut off while he is still alive with his hands tied behind his back trumps both what this woman did and what those Marines did. But again we are discussing what she did and it was wrong plain and simple. Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.