Race War & Gun Ban all in one

Let's just say that some people are overly paranoid and unrealistic.

 

Let's also say most people are lemmings and believe anything fed to them.

 

There are people who entertain fantastic ideas of massive conspiracies that, upon examination, are exceedingly unlikely to succeed in practice and are based not on evidence, but opinions, conjecture and incomplete data. CTs thrive on a lack of hard information combined with flights of fancy, and those who believe in them are of a certain mindset which, as you've here expressed, likes to think it's smarter and cleverer than everyone else. You don't realise that you're gullible in your own way - a way similar to how religious fundamentalists are, and surprise surprise, the two groups overlap considerably.

 

but you have the truth, unlike most others?

 

I stated the video looks fake, and it does. There are a million examples out there of people being shot point blank, not to mention my own experiences. Unless you've seen combat I certainly do know more than you.

The two posters accusing me of conspiracy theories, including you, are the ones trying to make the claim of being more clever. I simply stated the obvious. Anyone who has ever seen anyone get shot, especially 4 or 5 times at that distance, knows thats whats in the video isn't realistic.

You don't know the first thing about me, but you're full of conclusions on my observation of the video. Sounds to me like you're the one thats illogically sure of themselves.

 

actually, it looks very real.

that's cause it is real.

 

I just think you're jumping to unreasonable conclusions about what you're seeing. Do we even know how many of those shots fired in the video hit her? As I've said, I've seen video of people being shot, and blood was likewise not immediately apparent.

Given that the shooter also had a handgun, and not something more powerful, and given the low quality of the video, it really doesn't surprise me if there's nothing visible, nor that she was able to run at least a little way, which is all we get to see anyway. It could have been done much "better" if it had been faked.

Finally, jumping to the conclusion of "fake!" and "conspiracy!", which obviously some have done, is hardly a logical or reasonable thing to do. It's about the most outlandish interpretation of those events one could come up with, in fact, but then many are already conditioned into that kind of thinking by the existing CT subculture and the long list of conspiracy theories that have come before, especially those about similar events.

 

I'm not entirely sure what the OP is on about.

As for race war, it will be recalled that the anti gun act of 1968 (sorry, don't recall the actual name of that law) was created and pushed for by right wingers because they feared the Black Panthers. It was said they wanted to ignite a race war and had to be disarmed for the public good. Funny thing is the NRA had a hand in enacting that law.

Now do you see they were correct all along?

 

Was Operation Choke Point a conspiracy? Was Obama's strong arming the banks to shut down FFL accounts around the nation a conspiracy? We would not have even known if McMillian hadn't started posting regarding that one.

Was Fast and Furious a conspiracy? Was Feinsteins comments that she wants to ban guns a conspiracy?

Is it a conspiracy that Obama wants the SSA to cut off funds to people that own guns?

Is it a conspiracy that if you go to the doctor now they ask if you own guns as part of a general health check?

This government wants you disarmed at any cost. I do not put anything past them in their attempts to gain this goal, including Goebbel's level propoganda.

 

No, it doesn't. What experience do you have in real shootings? It's probably right up there with the rest of your gun knowledge, and that's nonexistant.

 

9mm doesn't necessarily go through you. Gotta see the gun to know it is there and if you watched the video he took, which I did, they were paying attention to what they were doing and not to him. Somehow being surprised by being shot at would seem very natural to me.

 

Actually 9mm ball ammo penetrates better than 5.56 ball ammo.

Assuming this was an actual shooting and he was using ball ammo of course, and not JHP.

The one thing I admit that I may be assuming is that if he was shooting live ammo, that his aim was any good. That is the only possibility that explains any of it. If someone with any kind of skill walked up and shot you point blank 5 times you wouldn't be going very far.

When you're shot your legs tend to give out pretty fast on you, so if she was hit I just don't see how it was possible.

Now the father is on TV talking about how "they messed with the wrong family". What group messed with them? Gun owners? The NRA?

He could have killed them just as easily with a machete. Would we then be looking at "common sense" machete laws?

I have children. If this had happened to them I would have been asking why a guy with problems like this was not identified, how he slipped through the cracks, why his employer didn't report this guy, why he wasn't investigated. I'd be after identifying people like this and keeping criminals behind bars. I'd be asking why his family and people he knew didn't do something. I'd blame the shooter, not the tool.

The last thing I would worry about is why he had a gun, but now this father is suddenly best buds with Bloomburg and his cronies.

 

It was actually .40 caliber and if hollow point, less likely to penetrate through. Aim is usually not that good but if he was as close as he seemed to be, good enough. What you say about being shot does not always happen. Saw a video once where the guy was shot with 9mm and didn't even know it and was walking around, which can happen up to 15 seconds even if the shot is a deadly one unless it hits something like the spine.

The guy just seemed to be overly sensitive to non-existent racism. If he did not have any people contact as it seems he didn't have much, someone like this would be hard to detect and even then, most people believe the best of others unless they were paranoid like he was. Lots of people are paranoid like he was but never shoot anyone so I am not sure what could have been caught but if someone had known he evidently killed his cats, that would be a big red flag.

 

And exactly how often is a shooter captured at the scene of the crime? 2%? 5%?

And he did not "Get away clean". The people at the station identified him within minutes, so he was known and they were looking for him within 10 minutes. Ran his credit card and got the information to the rental car he was driving within 30 minutes.

That is hardly "clean".

And "manifestos" have become more and more common in the case of killers who think they have a motive for doing what they do. Especially if they thin they are trying to save something, or think they have been targeted and persecuted.

 

Especially with a larget caliber weapon, like a 9mm.

Interesting on the claim of "seen combat". Well, I have known guys who got shot, and actually did not even realize it at the time. That is why we are trained that if we even suspect somebody is shot, pull off their IBA/IOTV and actually search the body for entry and exit wounds. For a small caliber, often times there is little blood at the time they are initially shot.

Of course, also remember that somebody who has "seen combat" as the person you responded to claims, it is with high power rifle ammunition, that typically passes through the body, leaving large exit wounds. Not small caliber 9mm ammunition, with much less power and as often as not staying inside the body so there is only an entry wound.

And I think the video is very real. I see nothing fake in it at all.

 

I suspect a lot of people who only see combat on their TVs and/or computer monitors also get a very wrong idea about what gunshots hitting a person are like. Movies have people going flying from pistol shots *L*

 

Yes, and no.

At short range, 9mm is very good at penetrating, especially a single layer of obstruction. Like say shooting through a car door or windshield.

However, it's ballistics also means that it looses power and speed faster then a high speed projectile, like a 5.56mm round. And each obstruction passed through decreases it to a greater and greater degree.

However, most tests people see of "ballistic penetration" are against ballistic gell, at fairly short ranges. And against such a soft target, the 9mm does indeed "penetrate farther". But how well does a 9mm penetrate steel? How well does it penetrate a target 50 meters away? 100 meters away?

This is a very complex answer, one that simply can not be explained with a few glib words, and expect to be taken seriously.

But tell you what, you believe that 9mm penetrates better then 5.56mm. Fine, I will accept that challenge.

We will each stand behind a 1/8" steel plate at 50 meters. You can take 5 shots at me behind the plate with your 9mm.

I will then take 5 shots at you from behind the plate with my 5.56mm.

You still willing to bet the "9mm penetrates better"> Because that was the thickness of the drop-down targets on the ranges that I ran from 1990-1993. And we always went ballistic on anybody that used a rifle on the pistol range. 9mm and .45 did not splatters on those targets, and dropped them.

5.56mm went right through them, and we had to send them to the base metalworking shop to have the holes filled in.

 

My references to penetration were within the confines of a "home defense" type of scenario, where you're going to be using JHP or soft point ammo.

Either of these rounds will punch through some walls, I'm not saying the 5.56/223 is a magic caliber.

What I am saying is that there have been multiple studies on 9mm/556 usage within structures and the 556/223 is a better choice for many reasons as indicated by the research. Not only do you have more "stopping power" (yeah I know, a whole other argument), but you have less chance of those rounds exiting a structure and killing someone after punching through a couple walls.

It's the reason most police organizations have gone away from 9mm subs and gone to an AR platform.

 

This is the same for almost any ammunition.

A lot of it depends largely upon what it hits once it enters the body. If a round enters and strikes a bone, it can fragment or be deflected, traveling even further through the body to end up in a completely different part. Loosing a lot of it's momentum while passing through soft tissues.

Even most ammunition like a 9mm only penetrate about 12" of ballistic gell (commonly used for these tests because it closely simulates the resistance a body gives the round). Pass into the body in the belly, and it is going through 6" before it even strikes the back of the ribcage. there it may deflect at an angle, then pass through another 6" before it even gets close to the skin again, loosing most if not all of it's momentum.

The type of shot that most commonly produces the monumental type of entry and exit wounds people are familiar with is actually the head shot. This is the only place on the human body where the bullet passes a bone, and then enters a sealed cavity, where the only place to go is out the other side. And the fact it is closed the pressure through hydrostatic shock is not dissipated but remains largely the same during the entire length of passage.

Shoot a person in the torso with a 9mm, and hit no bone, and the bullet will pass out the other side, with an entrance wound basically the same size. Shoot a person in the head, and the shock will increase the size of the exit wound and damage, because the shock has nowhere else to travel through the body.

Want to see an example of this? Try shooting at some bottles full of liquid, with the caps on.

[video=youtube;gir_RBveJXA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gir_RBveJXA[/video]

Now, try shooting at bottles with the caps off. See a difference?

 

WTF?

And exactly how many "9mm subs" do you think police departments have?

The biggest fail here is in apparently confusing what a submachine gun is, and what conditions it is used in. Most LEO have gone to the 5.56mm AR platform for one simple reason.

The 1997 North Hollywood Bank Shootout.

Where it was realized that the .38-9mm pistols they were armed with were of absolutely no use against perps with body armor and high caliber rifles. In order to finally put them down, they actually raided a nearby gun store and got some ARs of themselves, and were finally able to put them down.

Sorry, the more you are saying, the less sense you are making. The only time I have ever seen "9mm subs" in an armory was for FAST. And they had them for the event they had to clear a ship or building, they were never intended to be used to general combat situations. In those cases they used the M-16, like everybody else.

 

Argue with the FBI, they're the one that made the claim. I haven't been shooting up the house lately to do testing.

http://www.olyarms.com/index.php?op...netration-information&catid=13:technical-info

http://www.defensivecarry.com/forum...25105-5-56-actually-may-safer-indoor-use.html

http://www.nwlink.com/~josephk/ar15_penetration_tests.html

http://www.alloutdoor.com/2015/02/24/home-defense-case-low-penetration-rounds/

http://www.gunsandammo.com/ammo/long-guns-short-yardage-is-223-the-best-home-defense-caliber/