Yet another reason to ban assault weapons

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/2986345
Now I have lack of respect. The situation is a severly armed guy (how many guns did the alabama scenario criminal have on him). He is shooting people and his back is to me. You said we don't have justification to shoot him. Even if he is just threatening with the gun we don't.
So let me rephrase my question. a guy on the street points a gun at your wife with his backed to you. At which point is it ok for you to shoot him? Remember, you don't know if this is a law abiding citizen or a "plain clothes cop".
A plain clothes cop must identify himself as an officer when his gun is drawn...end of that dumb debate.
If a guy is holding my wife with a gun pointed at her head, and he hasn't identified himself as a police officer, then I would have JUST CAUSE to shoot him regardless if his back is to me or not. Like you said, if it was a police officer, he'd have to identify himself.
Let's look at this Alabama rampage:
McLendon started his two-county rampage across rural southern Alabama by burning down the home he shared with his mother. Authorities said results of forensic tests have not yet determined when Lisa McLendon was killed, but they do know her son set her on fire on their couch before driving away.
After he burned down the home, he drove about 12 miles southeast to Samson and gunned down three relatives and the wife and 18-month-old daughter of a local sheriff's deputy on the front porch of his uncle's home. He turned his gun next door and killed his 74-year-old grandmother and sent panicked bystanders fleeing and ducking behind cars.
McLendon then drove off, spraying bullets and killing three more bystanders.
Police caught up with McLendon in Geneva, about 24 miles from his mother's home, at Reliable Products, the metals plant he quit in 2003. Following a shootout with police, he walked into the business and killed himself.
So if you as a CWH were one of these bystanders, at what point would you have gotten involved? Reading the series of events, the only time anyone that wasn't related to him got shot, was when he was driving away. Would you have the mindset to pull out your pistol and identify yourself while this maniac was sparaying bullets from an SKS or Bushmaster? Do you think you could have even gotten a round off before he got into the car and drove away? They don't list a timeline as to how long he was at his uncle's home before driving off. Two minutes, five minutes, ten? You'd obviously would've been ducking for cover behind a car. Would you put yourself into the open to try and shoot, knowing this guy had 10 times the number of bullets than you, and would not waste any time trying to aim? Don't even think an experienced cop would be that stupid.
 

moprint

Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2986250
I fully understand the laws for converting a semi-auto to an auto. The automatic weapon issue came up in this thread relating the type of assault weapon this Alabama nut was using. So if he did convert it to auto, do you really think he cared whether it was illegal? HELLO? HE SHOT HIMSELF IN THE HEAD WHEN HIS KILLING SPREE WAS OVER!
Oh yeah the old filing down the firing pin to make it full auto.
Or did he look up that website from Canada that was dated 1999.
 

bionicarm

Active Member

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2986376
If a guy is holding my wife with a gun pointed at her head, and he hasn't identified himself as a police officer, then I would have JUST CAUSE to shoot him regardless if his back is to me or not. Like you said, if it was a police officer, he'd have to identify himself.
Let's look at this Alabama rampage:
McLendon started his two-county rampage across rural southern Alabama by burning down the home he shared with his mother. Authorities said results of forensic tests have not yet determined when Lisa McLendon was killed, but they do know her son set her on fire on their couch before driving away.
After he burned down the home, he drove about 12 miles southeast to Samson and gunned down three relatives and the wife and 18-month-old daughter of a local sheriff's deputy on the front porch of his uncle's home. He turned his gun next door and killed his 74-year-old grandmother and sent panicked bystanders fleeing and ducking behind cars.
McLendon then drove off, spraying bullets and killing three more bystanders.
Police caught up with McLendon in Geneva, about 24 miles from his mother's home, at Reliable Products, the metals plant he quit in 2003. Following a shootout with police, he walked into the business and killed himself.
So if you as a CWH were one of these bystanders, at what point would you have gotten involved? Reading the series of events, the only time anyone that wasn't related to him got shot, was when he was driving away. Would you have the mindset to pull out your pistol and identify yourself while this maniac was sparaying bullets from an SKS or Bushmaster? Do you think you could have even gotten a round off before he got into the car and drove away? They don't list a timeline as to how long he was at his uncle's home before driving off. Two minutes, five minutes, ten? You'd obviously would've been ducking for cover behind a car. Would you put yourself into the open to try and shoot, knowing this guy had 10 times the number of bullets than you, and would not waste any time trying to aim? Don't even think an experienced cop would be that stupid.
I guess I'm not getting this, why in the world would you not stop him? I'm not getting this at all? If I see a guy having shoot people, and I was carrying at the time. And the situation allowed for it, like he was close enough, I wasn't shooting into a crowd of people. That is why you carry a gun. It isn't to to be cool with the guys.
 

veni vidi vici

Active Member
"Doctors vs. Gun Owners
Doctors
(A) The number of physicians in the U.S. is 700,000.
(B) Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year are 120,000.
(C) Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171.
Statistics courtesy of U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services.
Now think about this:
Guns
(A) The number of gun owners in the U.S. is 80,000,000. (Yes, that's 80 million)
(B) The number of accidental gun deaths per year, all age groups, is 1,500.
(C) The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is. .000188. Statistics courtesy of FBI
So, statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Remember, 'Guns don't kill people, doctors do.'
FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE DOCTOR."
~The 912 Project~
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2986411
I guess I'm not getting this, why in the world would you not stop him? I'm not getting this at all? If I see a guy having shoot people, and I was carrying at the time. And the situation allowed for it, like he was close enough, I wasn't shooting into a crowd of people. That is why you carry a gun. It isn't to to be cool with the guys.
A license to carry a concealed weapon is designed to protect YOU from physical harm. It is not designed for you to protect others. That is the job for the police. If a situation arises where you must protect yourself, and must use deadly force to do it, that's when a concealed weapon can be legally drawn. If at the same time this protection involves others in your proximity, you have the right to defend those unarmed individuals as well.
So in regards to the Alabama shooter, if you were one of these people who was ducking behind the car and had a CWP, and there were two or three people with you hiding from this maniac, you have the right to protect yourself and those people from physical harm from this guy. Now if you see this guy pointing his gun ready to shoot someone else that isn't within your proximity, and he's not directly threatening you, the logical decision would be to draw your weapon and use deadly force to protect that individual. However, if you look at the legal aspects of that scenario, you are breaking the law regarding the use of your weapon. Would you be prosecuted for shooting this nut in this scenario? Very doubtful. But unfortunately, the District Attorney or local prosecutor COULD charge you with murder if they chose to do so in the eyes of the law.
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2986432
The disclaimer is clear.
"Conversion of the SKS to full auto is illegal without BATF approval prior to conversion."
I'm sure it is clear. However, do you really think a nut like this guy in Alabama would really care about this disclaimer? If someone wants to use an assault weapon to it's full capacity and intentions (i.e making it full auto) just for the use of going on a killing spree, I doubt they could care less whether it's illegal or not.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2986329
Gun laws don't work? Depends on the situation. The authorities in Alabama have yet been able to trace back where he got the two assault weapons. Were they legally purchased then stolen? Were they 'black market' weapons? If you go back and read the 1994 Weapons Ban Act, neither the SKS or Bushmaster he used would've been considered banned by that Act. So he could've gone down to his local gun shop and bought those and used them. Now if you made it illegal to sell and distribute ANY of the 'assault weapons' listed in the '94 ban, then eventually it would be very difficult for the average citizen to get hold of one of these weapons and use them in an assault of this type. Meaning, at some point in time the inventory of these weapons, if they were in fact no longer produced because of the ban, would diminish. Hardened criminals could probably find ways to get them (overseas, Mexico, Canada, etc.), but due to the cost, it probably wouldn't be worth it. So if the gun laws included a total ban on SKS and Bushmasters, this guy may or may not have been able to get hold of them, and that would've been 200 less rounds he could've shot. But I imagine he would've found other weapons to use in their place. In the case of his rampage, I don't think him having or not having those weapons would've made any difference.
Thats the thing, A Rugar Mini 14 ranch rifle will do anything an AR 15 will. In California all you had to do was mill off the bayonet lig and barrel threads and install a stock with a thumb hole and it was legal, How stupid is that?
Also it really isn't that simple to modify a Semi Auto into full auto mode. There are parts needed that you can't just take a trip down to the local Machine Guns R Us and buy. I didn't know it at the time but I had an AR 15 that could have cost me a quarter million and 10 years. It had a bold carrier out of an M16 and despite the fact the sear release was milled off it was illegal for me to have that part. That was a somewhat honest mistake on the part of the guy that built the gun.
I have a colt AR15 now and from what I understand you can't convert them without changing everything but the barrel.
 

socal57che

Active Member
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2987239
I didn't know it at the time but I had an AR 15 that could have cost me a quarter million and 10 years. It had a bold carrier out of an M16 and despite the fact the sear release was milled off it was illegal for me to have that part. That was a somewhat honest mistake on the part of the guy that built the gun.
I have a colt AR15 now and from what I understand you can't convert them without changing everything but the barrel.
Some Colt rifles came from the factory with M16 bolt carriers. Colt didn't see an issue with it since you need the rest of the fire control parts to make it automatic fire. Supposedly Colt was replacing carriers if you happened to have one because of that BATF ruling.
Some ARs will slam fire if you accidentally forget to install the disconnector during assembly. This is dangerous because the bolt may not be fully locked when the round discharges.
It takes a handful of M16 parts (which constitute a machine gun if you also own an AR15) to make it automatic fire. Every place I have seen that sells them makes it perfectly clear that BATF will confiscate and prosecute cases of abuse. Anyone attempting this is made perfectly aware that building a machine gun is VERY illegal.
So...we come back to the fact that criminals have no intention of obeying the law, therefore nullifying any law banning the weapons in question. They are already here and there is no way eliminate that fact. You would have to travel back in time and un-invent them. I don't think that is a viable option. The next best solution is to even the playing field and allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals.
 

1journeyman

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2987232
A license to carry a concealed weapon is designed to protect YOU from physical harm. It is not designed for you to protect others. That is the job for the police. If a situation arises where you must protect yourself, and must use deadly force to do it, that's when a concealed weapon can be legally drawn. If at the same time this protection involves others in your proximity, you have the right to defend those unarmed individuals as well.
So in regards to the Alabama shooter, if you were one of these people who was ducking behind the car and had a CWP, and there were two or three people with you hiding from this maniac, you have the right to protect yourself and those people from physical harm from this guy. Now if you see this guy pointing his gun ready to shoot someone else that isn't within your proximity, and he's not directly threatening you, the logical decision would be to draw your weapon and use deadly force to protect that individual. However, if you look at the legal aspects of that scenario, you are breaking the law regarding the use of your weapon. Would you be prosecuted for shooting this nut in this scenario? Very doubtful. But unfortunately, the District Attorney or local prosecutor COULD charge you with murder if they chose to do so in the eyes of the law.
Bionic, do you have any proof to back this up? Gun laws vary from State to State. In Texas, for instance, the current law would absolutely allow you to draw your weapon and protect the innocent.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2987232
A license to carry a concealed weapon is designed to protect YOU from physical harm. It is not designed for you to protect others. That is the job for the police. If a situation arises where you must protect yourself, and must use deadly force to do it, that's when a concealed weapon can be legally drawn. If at the same time this protection involves others in your proximity, you have the right to defend those unarmed individuals as well.
So in regards to the Alabama shooter, if you were one of these people who was ducking behind the car and had a CWP, and there were two or three people with you hiding from this maniac, you have the right to protect yourself and those people from physical harm from this guy. Now if you see this guy pointing his gun ready to shoot someone else that isn't within your proximity, and he's not directly threatening you, the logical decision would be to draw your weapon and use deadly force to protect that individual. However, if you look at the legal aspects of that scenario, you are breaking the law regarding the use of your weapon. Would you be prosecuted for shooting this nut in this scenario? Very doubtful. But unfortunately, the District Attorney or local prosecutor COULD charge you with murder if they chose to do so in the eyes of the law.
google joe horn, He was protecting others property.
So if I'm walking down the s treet see some thug r@ping some woman. I'm not legally allowed to pull my gun? Come on. I'd expect better than that even from you.
 

oscardeuce

Active Member
Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2987335
Some Colt rifles came from the factory with M16 bolt carriers. Colt didn't see an issue with it since you need the rest of the fire control parts to make it automatic fire. Supposedly Colt was replacing carriers if you happened to have one because of that BATF ruling.
Some ARs will slam fire if you accidentally forget to install the disconnector during assembly. This is dangerous because the bolt may not be fully locked when the round discharges.
It takes a handful of M16 parts (which constitute a machine gun if you also own an AR15) to make it automatic fire. Every place I have seen that sells them makes it perfectly clear that BATF will confiscate and prosecute cases of abuse. Anyone attempting this is made perfectly aware that building a machine gun is VERY illegal.
So...we come back to the fact that criminals have no intention of obeying the law, therefore nullifying any law banning the weapons in question. They are already here and there is no way eliminate that fact. You would have to travel back in time and un-invent them. I don't think that is a viable option. The next best solution is to even the playing field and allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals.
Then there's the LEGAL ways to own automatics. They can actually be relatively inexpensive. Pay you tax stamp, and you can buy a Reisling M-50 .45 ACP from a Class 3 dealer for about $4500 out the door. You can spend a little or $$$$$ in the Class 3 arena.
OR
Take your chances at going to jail, and losing all of your firearms by trying to modify your SA.
 

ibew41

Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2986329
Gun laws don't work? Depends on the situation. The authorities in Alabama have yet been able to trace back where he got the two assault weapons. Were they legally purchased then stolen? Were they 'black market' weapons? If you go back and read the 1994 Weapons Ban Act, neither the SKS or Bushmaster he used would've been considered banned by that Act. So he could've gone down to his local gun shop and bought those and used them. Now if you made it illegal to sell and distribute ANY of the 'assault weapons' listed in the '94 ban, then eventually it would be very difficult for the average citizen to get hold of one of these weapons and use them in an assault of this type. Meaning, at some point in time the inventory of these weapons, if they were in fact no longer produced because of the ban, would diminish. Hardened criminals could probably find ways to get them (overseas, Mexico, Canada, etc.), but due to the cost, it probably wouldn't be worth it. So if the gun laws included a total ban on SKS and Bushmasters, this guy may or may not have been able to get hold of them, and that would've been 200 less rounds he could've shot. But I imagine he would've found other weapons to use in their place. In the case of his rampage, I don't think him having or not having those weapons would've made any difference.
he could have got them even if they were banned in 94 didnt it expire in 03?
 

bionicarm

Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2987597
google joe horn, He was protecting others property.
So if I'm walking down the s treet see some thug r@ping some woman. I'm not legally allowed to pull my gun? Come on. I'd expect better than that even from you.

This is the Texas Concealed Gun Law regarding the use of a firearm for protection:
PC §9.31. SELF-DEFENSE. (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b),
a person is justified in using force against another when and to the
degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to
protect himself against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful
force.
(b) The use of force against another is not justified:
(1) in response to verbal provocation alone;
(2) to resist an arrest or search that the actor knows is being
made by a peace officer, or by a person acting in a peace officer's
presence and at his direction, even though the arrest or search is
unlawful, unless the resistance is justified under Subsection (c);
(3) if the actor consented to the exact force used or attempted by
the other;
(4) if the actor provoked the other's use or attempted use of
unlawful force, unless:
(A) the actor abandons the encounter, or clearly communicates
to the other his intent to do so reasonably believing he cannot safely
abandon the encounter; and
(B) the other nevertheless continues or attempts to use
unlawful force against the actor; or
(5) if the actor sought an explanation from or discussion with the
other person concerning the actor's differences with the other person
while the actor was:
(A) carrying a weapon in violation of Section 46.02; or
(B) possessing or transporting a weapon in violation of Section
46.05.
(c) The use of force to resist an arrest or search is justified:
(1) if, before the actor offers any resistance, the peace officer (or
person acting at his direction) uses or attempts to use greater force
than necessary to make the arrest or search; and
(2) when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the
force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the peace officer's
(or other person's) use or attempted use of greater force than
necessary.
(d) The use of deadly force is not justified under this subchapter
except as provided in Sections 9.32, 9.33, and 9.34.
PC §9.32. DEADLY FORCE IN DEFENSE OF PERSON. (a) A person
is justified in using deadly force against another:
(1) if he would be justified in using force against the other under
Section 9.31;
(2) if a reasonable person in the actor's situation would not have
retreated; and
(3) when and to the degree he reasonably believes the deadly
force is immediately necessary:
(A) to protect himself against the other's use or attempted use
of unlawful deadly force
 

bionicarm

Active Member
46 PC §9.33. TEXAS CONCEALED HANDGUN LAWS
(B) to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated
kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault,
robbery, or aggravated robbery.
(b) The requirement imposed by Subsection (a)(2) does not apply
to an actor who uses force against a person who is at the time of the
use of force committing an offense of unlawful entry in the habitation of
the actor.
PC §9.33. DEFENSE OF THIRD PERSON. A person is justified in
using force or deadly force against another to protect a third person if:
(1) under the circumstances as the actor reasonably believes
them to be, the actor would be justified under Section 9.31 or 9.32 in
using force or deadly force to protect himself against the unlawful force
or unlawful deadly force he reasonably believes to be threatening the
third person he seeks to protect; and
(2) the actor reasonably believes that his intervention is immediately
necessary to protect the third person.
PC §9.34. PROTECTION OF LIFE OR HEALTH. (a) A person is
justified in using force, but not deadly force, against another when and
to the degree he reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary
to prevent the other from committing suicide or inflicting serious
bodily injury to himself.
(b) A person is justified in using both force and deadly force against
another when and to the degree he reasonably believes the force or
deadly force is immediately necessary to preserve the other's life in an
emergency.
So in the scenario of stopping a r@pe, yes that would be justification to DRAW your weapon. However, what is the ruling for when you are allowed to use that weapon? Let's say you walk up on an attempted r@pe. You pull your gun and tell the guy to back off. If he stops attacking the girl, you can only hold him at bay until the authorities arrive. ONLY if he attempts to cause physical harm on YOU, do you have the right to shoot the individual using deadly force. You just can't shoot the guy because he was r@ping the girl. Now if he grabs the girl and puts a knife or gun to her head, and you draw your weapon and demand he releases her, under Section 9.33, subsection 2b, you do have the right to use deadly force to protect this third person.
What I'm saying about a scenario with a random shooter, is you have to be distinct in knowing that individual is directing physical harm on you or a third person before you are allowed to use deadly force. If you walk into a situation like this, you just can't draw your weapon and start firing at anyone whose holding or aiming a gun at someone. You have to be 100% positive that you need to use deadly force in order to preserve another life in this situation. You make the wrong decision, it's you that will face the murder charge. As stupid as it sounds, you have to give the assailant the opportunity to surrender before you use deadly force.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by socal57che
http:///forum/post/2987335
Some Colt rifles came from the factory with M16 bolt carriers. Colt didn't see an issue with it since you need the rest of the fire control parts to make it automatic fire. Supposedly Colt was replacing carriers if you happened to have one because of that BATF ruling.
Some ARs will slam fire if you accidentally forget to install the disconnector during assembly. This is dangerous because the bolt may not be fully locked when the round discharges.
It takes a handful of M16 parts (which constitute a machine gun if you also own an AR15) to make it automatic fire. Every place I have seen that sells them makes it perfectly clear that BATF will confiscate and prosecute cases of abuse. Anyone attempting this is made perfectly aware that building a machine gun is VERY illegal.
So...we come back to the fact that criminals have no intention of obeying the law, therefore nullifying any law banning the weapons in question. They are already here and there is no way eliminate that fact. You would have to travel back in time and un-invent them. I don't think that is a viable option. The next best solution is to even the playing field and allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves from criminals.
This stuff didn't come from Colt but the guy I sold it to knew what was going on with it, he's the one that told me about it and used it to get me to knock a little off the price.
 

reefraff

Active Member
Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2987730
Then there's the LEGAL ways to own automatics. They can actually be relatively inexpensive. Pay you tax stamp, and you can buy a Reisling M-50 .45 ACP from a Class 3 dealer for about $4500 out the door. You can spend a little or $$$$$ in the Class 3 arena.
OR
Take your chances at going to jail, and losing all of your firearms by trying to modify your SA.
There is a reason why you never hear of a person with a real live automatic weapon committing a crime. Those with enough money to own one aren't stupid enough to take a chance on jail time for owning one the wrong way or doing something improper with it.
 
Top