mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh please what? I said colletaral damage, do you have idea of the power of a 7.62x39 compared to small arms fire?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Yes I do. More than you ever will, I assume.

[ QUOTE ]
In a crowded area you'd have very big chances of maiming/killing innocent people firing such a weapon. Take a guy in the chest and you'd still risk the bullet going a helluva lot further. So yes - civilian, innocent etc. at risk in the building next door or 200m down the street.

[/ QUOTE ]

A riot is a warzone. You're trying to react to a very uncommon, violent, domestic type of war, with standard day to day self defense tactics. It's not as if these shopowners were on the roof firing AK-47's at some robber who happened to rob them on a normal day in South Central.

Yes, collateral damage was possible. I've been there. Not in anything as major as the LA riot, but I've stood watch, holding an M-4A1, during a prison riot that lasted almost an hour, and I can tell you, when you stand there, out-numbered, facing that mob, your survival instincts kick in. Thats human nature, unfortunately.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ofcourse, they have the weapons they see the mob and it kicks in - that is not what I am talking about. I just think it was a fairly bad idea to have them too begin with, and a bad idea to even consider using them for defense. Surely for shop defense you would prefer a shotgun and tops a 9mm, so you don't endanger innocents more than necessary.

And in a warzone, for civilians to pick up weapons like this is a debate we could divulge an entire thread to in its entirety.

And for the prison, you were in a situation where you are a professional with weapons training, you have access to intel, you are working with others which will directly make the situation more controlled (even if may not have felt that way) - and then it is a completely different situation.

[MidGe]

Really I am not getting this!

An OP which is very clear about what it is about: " mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters" turns out into a ballistic argument. The posters taking that line are completely nuts, imo. They would not pass a mental health evaluation!

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
But you are right in one thing, I do believe 5.56 weapons are also completely unfit to be civilian defense weapons in crowded areas also.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite sure exactly what you have in mind by "crowded areas," but many of our civilian police have decided that having access to 5.56mm rifles is a good thing.

[MidGe]

Umm, it seems that the NRA really has no worthwhile answers to the OP or any other post related to it. The ONLY thing then can talk about is ballistics.... LOL

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
Umm, it seems that the NRA really has no worthwhile answers to the OP or any other post related to it. The ONLY thing then can talk about is ballistics.... LOL

[/ QUOTE ]
Seriously, Midge, there's no need to embarass yourself any further than you've already managed to do -- there are over 210 posts in this thread as of right now, maybe a dozen of them on a tangent related to specific ballistics issues. Your opinions have generated multiple replies time and time again -- there's no need to stamp your feet like a child here, demanding additional attention be paid to you and your issues at the expense of someone else's discussion.

[MidGe]

metric,

obviously you are quite green when it comes to the internet and forums. To change the topic is called hijacking and is not seen as conducive to interesting debates. I can only guess that it is the only chance for people with very boring subject (like ballistic) to get exposure!

I feel no embarrassment and obviously have no need to, you on the other hand, could justify your embarrassment by your greenness and inexperience [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But you are right in one thing, I do believe 5.56 weapons are also completely unfit to be civilian defense weapons in crowded areas also.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not quite sure exactly what you have in mind by "crowded areas," but many of our civilian police have decided that having access to 5.56mm rifles is a good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, they will occassionally need them, for example when criminals have armed themselves heavily. But believe me, using such weapons for the police is a very drastic measure which needs full approval from higher command, most likely a good bit of intel on the area/people there ('are there civilians nearby') and will require good training in their use to be allowed one. Indiscriminate use of such a firearm - when another firearm would have been preferable - from a policeman would most likely cost him his job and maybe even net him some nice time in jail.

[Metric]

Is it your position that civilian enthusiasts cannot be as well trained in 5.56 use as civilian police, or have less intel regarding the immediate surroundings of their own house than would civilian police directed to an incident at the same location?

[MidGe]

I am starting to think that, as usual, this is an orchestrated NRA tactic to try to drown out those arguments they have no answer to, by turning them into a discussion about super boring guns effectiveness comparison, or ballistics!

Common, you guys have got to have answer, not just ignoring the mental health issue of people wishing to be gun owners, by changing the topic! [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
Is it your position that civilian enthusiasts cannot be as well trained in 5.56 use as civilian police, or have less intel regarding the immediate surroundings of their own house than would civilian police directed to an incident at the same location?

[/ QUOTE ]

My position is that overall they will be much less trained than professionals and have potentially less firing discipline, even if honourable exceptions will apply - and that is a very fair assessment.

This greatly increases the risk of collateral damage.