[The Final Dakar]

Oh, would I be mistaken in thinking that if someone in the theater had some type of pistol, the shooter would have been impervious thanks to his ridiculous armor?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If it was I feel like we'd have seen some politician assassinated by that method recently.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy POTUS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_assassination_attempt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords Politician.

And for more fun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_American_politicians

Notice any trend in the means used to assassinate?

Teeth don't work on everything.

Is that supposed to be some sort of argument? Its surely working against Assad in Syria. Right now, this very minute. The peace negotiations didn't, if you recall.

Did Syrians have something akin to 2nd amendment rights?

Not to my knowledge but if they did, do you think they'd behaving such a tough time in this war? Keep in mind they are also getting outside support.

Admittedly speaking out of my ass here, but I have to think gun sprees are committed the way they are because the killer seeks the feeling given which I don't believe is akin to using gasoline to burn or homemade bombs. Killing with a gun you get visceral feedback on every trigger pull and a strong feeling of control, as opposed to the less predictable chaos of, say, setting fire with gasoline.
Make credit harder to get.

I can see your point here. Don't you think they would have found a way to mass kill (if they are truly so despicable) regardless?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy POTUS

I said recently.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_assassination_attempt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords Politician.
And for more fun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_assassinated_American_politicians
Notice any trend in the means used to assassinate?

We were talking sniper rifles.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Is that supposed to be some sort of argument? Its surely working against Assad in Syria.

I think you're completely missing out on what I was pointing out thinking it's some kind of full-force attack on the 2nd. They're making progress, but its taking its toll because, you know, there's a military.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Not to my knowledge but if they did, do you think they'd behaving such a tough time in this war? Keep in mind they are also getting outside support.

So people who had no constitutional right to weapons are successfully mounting a resistance to a tyrant. This is kind of my point, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I can see your point here. Don't you think they would have found a way to mass kill (if they are truly so despicable) regardless?

I realize it's a natural reaction given the typical dipshits coming out of the woodwork on this type of event, but I'm not campaigning against the second amendment here. As I said before, I'm not convinced this is a preventable event, and I think using this as some type of argument against anything less than complete firearms restriction is as retarded as thinking someone with a concealed pistol would have taken care of the problem.

[OldManMac]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

As I said before, I'm not convinced this is a preventable event,

Exactly. There are some here who can't seem to differentiate between types and degrees of incidents.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If it was I feel like we'd have seen some politician assassinated by that method recently.

Here's our major disagreement then. I'd say the reason you don't have politicians getting assassinated here in America, despite the wide availability of effective assassination tools, is because sane people aren't interested in suicidal, anti-government terrorism against a functioning democracy.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I said recently.

In societal terms, thats still pretty recent. But I digress...

I think you're completely missing out on what I was pointing out thinking it's some kind of full-force attack on the 2nd. They're making progress, but its taking its toll because, you know, there's a military.

Do you suppose a military sgt would be less likely to rape and pillage if he were walking down the street knowing that any household was capable of defending itself? Knowing that he could not enter a household with impunity? Do you suppose he might be more likely to defect and join the opposition knowing that he would not be the only armed person in the group?

So people who had no constitutional right to weapons are successfully mounting a resistance to a tyrant. This is kind of my point, isn't it?

Yes, with a death toll of 16,000 civilians. Unarmed. Unable to defend themselves or mount an offensive against the military at the outset. The armed opposition took months to get rolling. Look at Iran. Their brutal crackdown worked, in part because the citizenry was unable to defend itself and were mowed down in the streets when attempting to do so. The best check on a military is armed citizenry.

I realize it's a natural reaction given the typical dipshits coming out of the woodwork on this type of event, but I'm not campaigning against the second amendment here. As I said before, I'm not convinced this is a preventable event, and I think using this as some type of argument against anything less than complete firearms restriction is as retarded as thinking someone with a concealed pistol would have taken care of the problem.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Here's our major disagreement then. I'd say the reason you don't have politicians getting assassinated here in America, despite the wide availability of effective assassination tools, is because sane people aren't interested in suicidal, anti-government terrorism against a functioning democracy.

Even if you didn't include "sane" as a qualifier, I don't see the insane doing all that much. Oklahoma City was homemade (and almost 20 years ago!), and Loughner (?) decided to go hands-on.

Do we have a functioning democracy? In the most technical of definitions, I suppose so (though voter suppression is blemish there), but looking at unpopularity of congress and the unpopularity of so much of the post 9/11 security-related measures, and our Muslim Kenyan Socialist President, it seems to me event he insane would have tried something by now.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

In societal terms, thats still pretty recent. But I digress...

In terms of technology and security it's ancient.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Do you suppose a military sgt would be less likely to rape and pillage if he were walking down the street knowing that any household was capable of defending itself?

Sure.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Do you suppose he might be more likely to defect and join the opposition knowing that he would not be the only armed person in the group?

No, that's an act of conscience. He'll be facing better equipped, trained, and armed foes by defecting.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Yes, with a death toll of 16,000 civilians. Unarmed. Unable to defend themselves or mount an offensive against the military at the outset. The armed opposition took months to get rolling. Look at Iran. Their brutal crackdown worked, in part because the citizenry was unable to defend itself and were mowed down in the streets when attempting to do so. The best check on a military is armed citizenry.

So why did Libya go more smoothly?

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Even if you didn't include "sane" as a qualifier, I don't see the insane doing all that much. Oklahoma City was homemade (and almost 20 years ago!), and Loughner (?) decided to go hands-on.
Do we have a functioning democracy? In the most technical of definitions, I suppose so (though voter suppression is blemish there), but looking at unpopularity of congress and the unpopularity of so much of the post 9/11 security-related measures, and our Muslim Kenyan Socialist President, it seems to me event he insane would have tried something by now.

Well, that was my point. Insane people screw up their plans in a way sane people don't. If a bunch of committed, rational American citizens wanted to take down the government we'd be in serious trouble.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, that was my point. Insane people screw up their plans in a way sane people don't. If a bunch of committed, rational American citizens wanted to take down the government we'd be in serious trouble.

How much is a bunch? I don't see how a large (let's say thousands) group could organize to move against the government without it catching wind and the government having the option to incarcerate them or worse. And let's say they move against the group drawing the ire of even more Americans, who then arm themselves and take to the streets doesn't the military then get mobilized? At the very least, I'm sure the President will then be sequestered and then assassination becomes very difficult.

Edit: Thanks to Obama, couldn't he just predator strike or indefinitely detain such an organization under the guise of subverting terrorism? No, I think we're pretty much ****ed if someone with even less of a conscience gets in power.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

In terms of technology and security it's ancient.

But as proof of concept I believe its still valid.

No, that's an act of conscience. He'll be facing better equipped, trained, and armed foes by defecting.

But seeing that the opposition is already organized and armed would lessen his hesitation for consideration of self-preservation. On a larger scale, you'd see more defections faster.

So why did Libya go more smoothly?

I'll admit I'm no expert on Libya's landscape before the revolution, but if I had to guess....

-Iran did a much better job of containing information leaks and controlling the media coming in and out of the country.

-Iran did a much better job of keeping opposition groups disorganized and cut off from resources such as funding and arms.

-Iran acted much more decisively by using small arms to brutalize its citizenry. It relied on its own military institutions instead of outsourcing to local militias and warlords who would cause much more collateral damage. It did not start using heavy arms such as tanks and artillery because of the media backlash that would have caused. They were savvy enough to understand that overdoing it would lead to further unrest and embolden their opposition.

Emphasis on the relevant section.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

But as proof of concept I believe its still valid.

I don't dismiss it as impossible. But as I point out above, I almost feel anything other than someone acting alone (short of an internal conspiracy) is doomed to failure or thwarting.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

But seeing that the opposition is already organized and armed would lessen his hesitation for consideration of self-preservation. On a larger scale, you'd see more defections faster.

It's reasonable, but I would emphasize conscience as the far greater motivational factor here.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I'll admit I'm no expert on Libya's landscape before the revolution, but if I had to guess....

No, no, in comparison to Syria.

[subego]

A thousand would probably be plenty.

You are correct a thousand-person conspiracy is unsustainable, but I don't think you need coordination between smaller groups for them to be effective, they only need to be moving in the same general direction.


Phun Phact: the ideal sized conspiracy is about twelve. More than that, and your risk of exposure is too large (there's an exponential correlation between number of people who know a secret and the risk that secret will be exposed). Less than that and you don't have the spread of resources and skills to do anything truly earth-shattering.

[The Final Dakar]

Man, we've gone into some ****ed up territory here, eh? I guess that's natural when something this inexplicable happens.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Man, we've gone into some ****ed up territory here, eh? I guess that's natural when something this inexplicable happens.

Yeah. I can't say I've been comfortable with this discussion, but at some point I decided to just put my head down and plow forward. If the intent of the Second Amendment is really to protect us from tyranny, this is what your going to have to talk about if you place that intent under analysis.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't dismiss it as impossible. But as I point out above, I almost feel anything other than someone acting alone (short of an internal conspiracy) is doomed to failure or thwarting.

Sure, as it stands now, but civil war/revolution would quickly change the landscape of this country. Very quickly. Even then I think you're right, but through attrition the popular uprising would win out (so long as it remains popular).

It's reasonable, but I would emphasize conscience as the far greater motivational factor here.

Early on, yes. Now i think you're seeing survival kick in. Many of the defecting generals see the writing on the wall and they want to get out and have a place in the new Syria. This could have happened before much of the bloodshed if it became apparent that the citizens were in control of the country - or at least parts of it.

No, no, in comparison to Syria.

My bad.

In all honesty, I'd say because Libya's people were far better armed than Syria's and quickly took control of territory and started organizing. NATO (US) airstrikes didn't hurt either.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Man, we've gone into some ****ed up territory here, eh? I guess that's natural when something this inexplicable happens.

Yeah we have. I think its the inevitable destination for any blanket gun-control conversation taken to its natural conclusion. It is a societal issue and we are discussing society - at least recent examples of society collapsing and being rebuilt.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yeah. I can't say I've been comfortable with this discussion, but at some point I decided to just put my head down and plow forward. If the intent of the Second Amendment is really to protect us from tyranny, this is what your going to have to talk about if you place that intent under analysis.

To me its twofold. Its to protect us from tyranny and to make us somewhat un-reliant on the government for individual defense of our homes and families. I would never want to place the survival of my family in the hands of people I've never met. Especially if the nation collapses economically and/or some natural disaster happens.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

Yeah. I can't say I've been comfortable with this discussion, but at some point I decided to just put my head down and plow forward. If the intent of the Second Amendment is really to protect us from tyranny, this is what your going to have to talk about if you place that intent under analysis.

Talking in theoretical terms about eliminating a tyrant president is the only thing that has left me a little unnerved.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

Sure, as it stands now, but civil war/revolution would quickly change the landscape of this country. Very quickly. Even then I think you're right, but through attrition the popular uprising would win out (so long as it remains popular).

Well, I believe subego was discussing a pre-civil war elimination of leadership via sniper rifle.

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

In all honesty, I'd say because Libya's people were far better armed than Syria's and quickly took control of territory and started organizing. NATO (US) airstrikes didn't hurt either.

I wonder why Quaddafi allowed the citizens arms.


Anyway, I realized that if it hadn't been for France, the US likely wouldn't exist. So really foreign intervention, however self-motivated does seem like a valid expectation in larger scenarios.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

To me its twofold. Its to protect us from tyranny and to make us somewhat un-reliant on the government for individual defense of our homes and families. I would never want to place the survival of my family in the hands of people I've never met. Especially if the nation collapses economically and/or some natural disaster happens.

And let's face it, the writers of the Second Amendment were intimately familiar with the notion of those with arms enslaving those without.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Talking in theoretical terms about eliminating a tyrant president is the only thing that has left me a little unnerved.

I knew it was going there from the outset, but quickly realized you make for such a shitty terrorist I was gonna have to spell it out.

[Chongo]

Great Britain and Taiwan are islands, have the some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, and the criminals still have access to all the guns they need.

[The Final Dakar]

Thank you Chongo, for posting something unrelated the point of the conversation, as usual.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Great Britain and Taiwan are islands, have the some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, and the criminals still have access to all the guns they need.

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Thank you Chongo, for posting something unrelated the point of the conversation, as usual.

My bad I thought I quoted this post

Originally Posted by ironknee 

one thing is true...
the next one is out there....and he has a credit card
how do we stop him from getting guns?

BTW What has Libya, Syria, or Qaddafi have to do with the topic of this thread?

[subego]

We're discussing the Second Amendment and the impact it would have upon a revolution against a tyrannical government.

Said countries have experience with both revolutions and tyrannical governments, so their experiences are relevant.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

We're discussing the Second Amendment and the impact it would have upon a revolution against a tyrannical government.
Said countries have experience with both revolutions and tyrannical governments, so their experiences are relevant.

Ah, so the Cristero war would not be off topic?

[subego]

Technically? No.

But just because you can bring something up doesn't mean you should.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Oh, would I be mistaken in thinking that if someone in the theater had some type of pistol, the shooter would have been impervious thanks to his ridiculous armor?

Not necessarily. A .357 SIG 115GR FMJ, like what I carry, would crack his skull and shot anywhere else, except in the trauma plate, would likely penetrate his body armor. 1660FPS is no joke.

[subego]

There's body armor rated to handle that, but it'd still poke you pretty hard.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

There's body armor rated to handle that, but it'd still poke you pretty hard.

What he was wearing was rated up to .40/9mm. A FMJ .357 SIG would probably penetrate, but if I were within 20' I'd probably go for a head shot. The most difficult aspect is trying to avoid bystanders immediately in front of me, with all the chaos in the dark it would be tough to get a clean shot, but if I could get his head silhouette I'd fix all his problems.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

We're discussing the Second Amendment and the impact it would have upon a revolution against a tyrannical government.
Said countries have experience with both revolutions and tyrannical governments, so their experiences are relevant.

This is an excellent point. I believe too many have been lured into forgetting that power corrupts. The phenomena you see across the Middle East with governments killing their own en masse, is not one of a barbaric "towel-head" culture incapable of civility and rule of law. It's what happens when government authority remains unchecked and uncheckable for far too long. It's just as much a possibility here as it is there, given the same socio-economic conditions and authoritarian regimes. Whether people want to accept it or not, a people enabled with the right to own and bear arms is a great equalizer and a warning to any despot nation who sees themselves marching through the US. i.e. better not start in the mountains of Colorado or the hills of Texas.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

We're discussing the Second Amendment and the impact it would have upon a revolution against a tyrannical government.
Said countries have experience with both revolutions and tyrannical governments, so their experiences are relevant.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is an excellent point. I believe too many have been lured into forgetting that power corrupts. The phenomena you see across the Middle East with governments killing their own en masse, is not one of a barbaric "towel-head" culture incapable of civility and rule of law. It's what happens when government authority remains unchecked and uncheckable for far too long. It's just as much a possibility here as it is there, given the same socio-economic conditions and authoritarian regimes. Whether people want to accept it or not, a people enabled with the right to own and bear arms is a great equalizer and a warning to any despot nation who sees themselves marching through the US. i.e. better not start in the mountains of Colorado or the hills of Texas.

This why I made mention of the Cristero war. The PRI (Marxist) took control of Mexico and began a systematic persecution of the people to point that they took up arms and fought back in a war that lasted three years.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

What he was wearing was rated up to .40/9mm. A FMJ .357 SIG would probably penetrate, but if I were within 20' I'd probably go for a head shot. The most difficult aspect is trying to avoid bystanders immediately in front of me, with all the chaos in the dark it would be tough to get a clean shot, but if I could get his head silhouette I'd fix all his problems.

I don't know shit about ammo or guns in general, but is this fairly standard stuff, or do you have something that has a little extra "stopping power"? I'm aware there armor piercing round available (cop killers?), but I wonder about their prevalence.

Also, would you consider yourself an average shot? As your description shows, it wasn't the most ideal situation even if you were fortunate aenough to be armed and not scared shitless.

Originally Posted by Chongo 

Great Britain and Taiwan are islands, have the some of the strictest gun control laws in the world, and the criminals still have access to all the guns they need.

Another dumb thought; One of the arguments in favor of the second is that illegal weapons are easy to obtain, so it levels the playing field. In the event of an ever growing, organizing rebellion, wouldn't they be able to take advantage of that situation?

[The Final Dakar]

Also, look out, because apparently sirhan sirhan level conspiracy theories are starting to make the rounds. I'm surprised Chongo hasn't posted a link to one yet.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Also, look out, because apparently sirhan sirhan level conspiracy theories are starting to make the rounds. I'm surprised Chongo hasn't posted a link to one yet.

Meh. Why post a link to an Alex Jones site when you already know that he's going to claim that this was another false flag operation that was ran because Fast and Furious was exposed and Obama needed another event in order to call for passage of the UN weapons treaty.

[The Final Dakar]

[pooka]

Dual pistols, body armor, gas grenades, knife, etc...

Why hasn't anyone blamed Call of Duty yet?

[The Final Dakar]

Because he did it at a "violent" movie.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't know shit about ammo or guns in general, but is this fairly standard stuff, or do you have something that has a little extra "stopping power"? I'm aware there armor piercing round available (cop killers?), but I wonder about their prevalence.
Also, would you consider yourself an average shot? As your description shows, it wasn't the most ideal situation even if you were fortunate aenough to be armed and not scared shitless.

The .357 he's talking about is roughly the same size and weight as a 9mm bullet, but goes a good 400fps faster.

As far as the hero routine goes, Shaddim's strategy sounds like it would get you killed. He has body armor and a rifle, you have a pistol. He has a clear advantage in a stand-up shooting match, so my primary thought is not to get in a stand-up shooting match.

Assuming my brain functioned, there's absolutely no way I'm intentionally moving out from behind cover if he's facing me, so a head-shot is out of the question. What I want to do is try and get behind him. Failing that, I want my cover to be close to the aisle, so when he gets to my row he's likely looking over me, and I should have a clear shot into his nuts.

[The Final Dakar]

I just realized, this guy reminds me of Zuckerberg.

[subego]

He reminds me of OMGChad.

[The Final Dakar]

Discounting the hair.

[subego]

Admittedly, it's hard to discount the hair.

[The Final Dakar]

I find it hard to discount your face.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I don't know shit about ammo or guns in general, but is this fairly standard stuff, or do you have something that has a little extra "stopping power"? I'm aware there armor piercing round available (cop killers?), but I wonder about their prevalence.

It's a very powerful handgun for concealed carry, with greater muzzle velocity than the .40 pistols the shooter was carrying. The ammo is specifically designed for penetration, the round isn't going to deform in the same manner as a hollow point and isn't chosen for it's "stopping power". Also, it's a smaller, lighter, bi-metal jacketed slug with a sharper point, all of which also aids in penetration. In a demo I've seen them go through standard issue IIIA Kevlar like it's cardboard.

I'm considered a good shot. The assailant in the theater started with a shotgun, firing into the front rows, then went to a semi-auto rifle which quickly jammed, then pulled a pistol. Given the weapon changes, and the ample view provided by the arena seating, it wouldn't be very hard to get some cover from the row in front of me and get off a few reasonable shots. Enough to likely scare him and make him panic, if my shots didn't put him down.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by subego 

I should have a clear shot into his nuts.

Not cool Butters.

[subego]

Precisely.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

The .357 he's talking about is roughly the same size and weight as a 9mm bullet, but goes a good 400fps faster.
As far as the hero routine goes, Shaddim's strategy sounds like it would get you killed. He has body armor and a rifle, you have a pistol. He has a clear advantage in a stand-up shooting match, so my primary thought is not to get in a stand-up shooting match.

Who said anything about standing? Having cover, higher ground, and the element of surprise (I know where he is, but he doesn't know about me), gives me an advantage. Given the circumstances, he probably couldn't track where I am. Also, in this particular instance the guy seems like a coward, even if I didn't get a kill shot he might turn tail and run back out, or drop and surrender, if I hit him pretty much anywhere.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

This is an excellent point. I believe too many have been lured into forgetting that power corrupts. The phenomena you see across the Middle East with governments killing their own en masse, is not one of a barbaric "towel-head" culture incapable of civility and rule of law. It's what happens when government authority remains unchecked and uncheckable for far too long. It's just as much a possibility here as it is there, given the same socio-economic conditions and authoritarian regimes. Whether people want to accept it or not, a people enabled with the right to own and bear arms is a great equalizer and a warning to any despot nation who sees themselves marching through the US. i.e. better not start in the mountains of Colorado or the hills of Texas.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Who said anything about standing? Having cover, higher ground, and the element of surprise (I know where he is, but he doesn't know about me), gives me an advantage. Given the circumstances, he probably couldn't track where I am. Also, in this particular instance the guy seems like a coward, even if I didn't get a kill shot he might turn tail and run back out, or drop and surrender, if I hit him pretty much anywhere.

"Stand-up" was a turn of phrase. What I'm talking about is a head-on confrontation. I'm not even poking my head up versus a person with that much firepower, let alone enough to put my arm up and out. To put it another way, if I'm going to fight this guy, I'm going to fight dirty.

You are also comitting a huge mistake if you let an after-the-fact assessment of his bravery be a metric by which you judge the quality of your tactical plan.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I find it hard to discount your face.

It's always full price for you.