• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Dylann Roof: The Second Amendment Strikes Again

mgardner said:
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/black-or-white

There's also a large number of people who are not criminals in the sense that you are using the term, but are not responsible, emotionally well adjusted, right thinking people. They get guns as an emotional safety blanket, or as a confidence booster, or for all kinds of wrong reasons. Then, they get in an argument or a stressful situation that they can't handle, and blam, someone who would otherwise have gotten punched in the mouth, or maybe just stabbed with whatever was handy bleeds out on the street.
Click to expand...

For instance, some of my relatives who own an average of 140 guns each. Not (yet) criminals, but tittering on the brink of the lead story. The lesson they learned from Ruby Ridge and Waco was "they didn't have enough guns."
 
Yuchi1 said:
....."Luke O’Dell of the Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, a Colorado group on the other side of the debate over gun control, took a nearly opposite view. “Potentially, if there had been a law-abiding citizen who had been able to carry in the theater, it’s possible the death toll would have been less.”....*

* http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/21/us/shooting-at-colorado-theater-showing-batman-movie.html?_r=0
Click to expand...

The idea that the death toll would have been less to me is the definition of crackpot insanity, given the known circumstances.

What if there wasn't ONE law-abiding citizen? What if there were 10? Who are you shooting at?

Crazy.
 
ponderingturtle said:
That seems to be the case and that I had heard that there were CCW there who did not fire because of concerns about collateral damage. Which I guess is pretty silly as if they were concerned about collateral damage they probably wouldn't have a CCW.

Though what it would have done is also pretty silly, he was wearing body armor, and I am thinking of the north hollywood shooting for what happens when people armed only with handguns engage in an exchange of fire with people in body armor.
Click to expand...

Depends on handgun caliber. That's why my primary defensives will damage permanently someone's non-military body armor and will really annoy someone in military same*. I have not yet moved up to .50. But I can afford to when I choose to.

*which here means will cause pain/shock/very bad bruising - and get their attention after they get up. If.
 
ponderingturtle said:
That seems to be the case and that I had heard that there were CCW there who did not fire because of concerns about collateral damage. Which I guess is pretty silly as if they were concerned about collateral damage they probably wouldn't have a CCW.

Though what it would have done is also pretty silly, he was wearing body armor, and I am thinking of the north hollywood shooting for what happens when people armed only with handguns engage in an exchange of fire with people in body armor.
Click to expand...

Collateral damage is easy to avoid - hit what you are aiming at - only incompetents fire wildly.
 
NoahFence said:
The idea that the death toll would have been less to me is the definition of crackpot insanity, given the known circumstances.

What if there wasn't ONE law-abiding citizen? What if there were 10? Who are you shooting at?

Crazy.
Click to expand...

The one who came in and started firing is a good choice.
 
DavidJames said:
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the details of what transpired in the theater during the shooting before you bring movie fantasy solutions to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Let's see, dude walks in dressed in costume, subsequently tosses smoke bombs, pulls out weapons and begins shooting patrons with screams, blood flying and people falling. Since no CWL was allowed, when his .22 rimfire rifle jammed why didn't some of the non-CWL people exhibit courage and take him on? As apparently, their Brady Campaign or ceasefireusa.org membership cards didn't stop any bullets.

Say he'd been wearing a Second Chance or other style of body armor. A hard-cast wad cutter round fired from a .38 or .44 special(s) into his upper torso would likely have at least temporarily disabled him if not totally by chest compression from the bullet shock. Unfortunately, we'll never know as the theater management chose to render their patrons as unarmed sheeple.

Also, unfortunately, for them (theater ownership) they are in the middle of a raft of civil litigation under Colorado's civil liability statutes.*

* http://deadline.com/2014/08/cinemark-aurora-theater-shooting-lawsuit-jury-dark-knight-rises-820639/#
 
Yuchi1 said:
Let's see, dude walks in dressed in costume, subsequently tosses smoke bombs, pulls out weapons and begins shooting patrons with screams, blood flying and people falling. Since no CWL was allowed, when his .22 rimfire rifle jammed why didn't some of the non-CWL people exhibit courage and take him on? As apparently, their Brady Campaign or ceasefireusa.org membership cards didn't stop any bullets.

Say he'd been wearing a Second Chance or other style of body armor. A hard-cast wad cutter round fired from a .38 or .44 special(s) into his upper torso would likely have at least temporarily disabled him if not totally by chest compression from the bullet shock. Unfortunately, we'll never know as the theater management chose to render their patrons as unarmed sheeple.

Also, unfortunately, for them (theater ownership) they are in the middle of a raft of civil litigation under Colorado's civil liability statutes.*

* http://deadline.com/2014/08/cinemark-aurora-theater-shooting-lawsuit-jury-dark-knight-rises-820639/#
Click to expand...

Better watch this first if you want to talk about the effects of being shot while wearing soft body armor:



I'm a retired professional. I don't believe that given the circumstances of this particular act and the numbers of individuals at the scene going to the gun would be a good decision even for a professional, let alone the average concealed carrier.

BTW, the rifle used wasn't a .22 LR. it was a Smith MP15 AR platform rifle in 5.56
 
BStrong said:
Better watch this first if you want to talk about the effects of being shot while wearing soft body armor:
Click to expand...

First, you screwed up the link. Only use the last part of the web address within the yt tag:



Second, I don't think the video disproves his point. There are two different body armors demonstrated here. The second one is a "second chance" vest. Note, though, their discussion about using magazines on top of the armor (go to around 3:30 in the video). The guy says, "If I didn't do that [add the magazines on top] my chest would look like a piece of raw hamburger". Yes, the bullet won't knock you down. But it can still hurt a lot, even with body armor.

Lastly, their discussion of the physics involved is actually wrong. They use the term "energy" when they should say "momentum". The bullet gains as much momentum as the gun does during firing of the bullet, but the bullet gains the vast majority of the energy, so far more energy is transferred to the target than to the shooter.
 
Ziggurat said:
First, you screwed up the link. Only use the last part of the web address within the yt tag:



Second, I don't think the video disproves his point. There are two different body armors demonstrated here. The second one is a "second chance" vest. Note, though, their discussion about using magazines on top of the armor (go to around 3:30 in the video). The guy says, "If I didn't do that [add the magazines on top] my chest would look like a piece of raw hamburger". Yes, the bullet won't knock you down. But it can still hurt a lot, even with body armor.

Lastly, their discussion of the physics involved is actually wrong. They use the term "energy" when they should say "momentum". The bullet gains as much momentum as the gun does during firing of the bullet, but the bullet gains the vast majority of the energy, so far more energy is transferred to the target than to the shooter.
Click to expand...

Sorry about the YT link.

Both vests are/were products from Second Chance. The gentleman shooting himself w/ the .44 mag is/was the President and founder of Second Chance, Rich Davis.

The company name is a direct reference to why Rich developed soft body armor in the first place - he wanted to give good guys a "second chance" to survive a shooting, which his product definitely did.

Rich himself states, right after the part you quoted that "he doesn't get to kill somebody afterwards" I don't want to turn this into an argument from authority, but what folks may believe about the terminal effect of a shot on an individual wearing body armor is pretty much based on popular fiction than reality. Unless you're talking about someone wearing the lightest type of vest available taking a round at the upper limit of the vests' protection level someone that's hit on the armor can put up an effective defense or offense after being hit - if you'd like some evidence of this (and I won't screw up the link this time) I would direct you to the North Hollywood bank robbery:



Notice that the two actors are wrapped up with improvised BA, but multiple hits from LAPD duty weapons didn't do much to stop the incident.

I would not depend on a shot to stop an armored individual unless it was a hit that impacted the head or the pelvic girdle
 
FBI: Breakdown in background check system allowed Dylann Roof to buy gun

Dylann Roof, who is accused of killing nine people at a church in South Carolina three weeks ago, was only able to purchase the gun used in the attack because of breakdowns in the FBI’s background-check system, FBI Director James B. Comey said Friday.

Comey said that Roof should have been prevented from buying the .45-caliber weapon used in a shooting that authorities have said was motivated by Roof’s racist views. The political repercussions of the June 17 massacre at Emanuel African Methodist Episcopal Church in Charleston led South Carolina to remove the Confederate flag from its statehouse grounds Friday.

“This case rips all of our hearts out, but the thought that an error on our part is connected to a gun this person used to slaughter these people is very painful to us,” said Comey.

The lapse was the result of errors not only by the FBI but by the Lexington County prosecutors’ office, and Comey said he has ordered a review of procedures that led to the failure. The errors came to light as investigators examined a gun purchase Roof made two months before the shooting in Charleston.

Roof had been arrested for possession of narcotics in February, a felony charge that alone did not disqualify him from buying a gun. But Comey said that Roof’s subsequent admission of the drug crime would have triggered an automatic rejection of his gun purchase if the information had been properly recorded in background-check databases.

Instead, Comey said the data was not properly entered in the bureau’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS), and that an FBI examiner assigned to review Roof’s purchase never saw his admission to the narcotics charge.

Comey’s disclosure to reporters who were summoned to FBI headquarters on Friday amounted to a heartbreaking admission by the FBI director that the attack on members of a Bible study group might have been averted.

The failure to block Roof’s purchase is likely to renew scrutiny of a troubled federal background-check system that also allowed seemingly troubled young men to acquire firearms in previous shootings, including a 2011 attack in Tucson that wounded then-congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).
Click to expand...
 
So if Roof had used a car to crash into the church and kill a bunch of people, would liberals be calling for a ban on cars? How about if he had killed several people by giving them brownies laced with a deadly dose of tylenol? Would we be hearing cries from the left to ban tylenol?
 
bobtaftfan said:
So if Roof had used a car to crash into the church and kill a bunch of people, would liberals be calling for a ban on cars?
Click to expand...

Probably not.

bobtaftfan said:
How about if he had killed several people by giving them brownies laced with a deadly dose of tylenol? Would we be hearing cries from the left to ban tylenol?
Click to expand...

Probably not.

What conclusion can we draw from these rhetorical questions? I think I know, tell me if I'm close...

Guns are not in the same category (for liberals) as cars and Tylenol. Right?

ETA: I'm not sure, but I think it also implies that for conservatives, cars, Tylenol, and guns are similar enough to draw some meaningful comparison?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom