Post by: pianoman9701 on July 09, 2016, 10:50:05 AM
http://www.cbsnews.com/live/video/gun-used-by-shooter-in-dallas-identified/?ftag=CNM15cf32c
Here are pictures of the rifle.
Post by: Wazukie on July 09, 2016, 10:56:39 AM
Post by: Bob33 on July 09, 2016, 11:13:52 AM
Post by: j_h_nimrod on July 09, 2016, 11:29:20 AM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on July 09, 2016, 11:42:13 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 09, 2016, 12:30:08 PM
hmmm, not much of a "sniper" rifle now is it. :dunno:
Interesting and I had the same thought. He was a carpenter in the Army. Shooting a 70 year old SKS with no scope, was able to perform kill shots on 50% of the people he shot, two days after the FBI announced that they weren't pressing charges on Hillary. I'm not a conspiracy theorist by any stretch. But the facts as we have them are sketchy, at best.
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 09, 2016, 12:45:22 PM
Post by: CAMPMEAT on July 09, 2016, 12:47:36 PM
Post by: Alchase on July 09, 2016, 01:00:39 PM
Even with a SKS.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 10, 2016, 07:44:20 AM
Shooting with open sights at 200 yards and hitting the kill zone is not an extraordinary accomplishment for an average shooter.
Even with a SKS.
For a carpenter under an extremely high stress situation it is. As we've discussed with regards to hunting, hitting a target and hitting a living thing are two completely different situations.
Post by: Scvette on July 10, 2016, 07:56:58 AM
They don't even qualify as an assault rifle under the '94 ban, in fact I think they are C&R eligible....
But that one has one of those stabby things on it,I know there's no teloscopic thingys on it,but the stabby thing just might make it an AR. :dunno: :bash:
Post by: Scvette on July 10, 2016, 08:02:54 AM
How do we know that was the gun in question ? The cops did an excellent job of blowing the sonofabitch up with C-4 with no remains to do a toxicologist test on. :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
I have serious concern as to the use of explosives to take that guy out,what were they thinking....any idea how the robot that brought it in is doing? Oh that's my concern,not freaking dirtbag they blew up,that was great... RLM too (robot lives matter too) :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 11, 2016, 06:58:38 AM
They don't even qualify as an assault rifle under the '94 ban, in fact I think they are C&R eligible....
But that one has one of those stabby things on it,I know there's no teloscopic thingys on it,but the stabby thing just might make it an AR. :dunno: :bash:
That stabby thing increases the rate of fire 1000%. It can fire a whole 400-round magazine in 2 seconds with pinpoint accuracy at 5,000 yards.
Post by: fishngamereaper on July 11, 2016, 07:08:11 AM
SKS isn't that much of a dog that some people think. Sure you might not take it to benchrest shoot, but hitting targets out to 300 yds or so it would do okay. IF an adult male human is about 16 inches across the chest, then little over 5 MOA or about 1.5 mil at 300 yds. Has anyone heard what distances he was shooting from?
I saw some video and it appeared much of his shooting was run and gun. He was using his angles better, rapidly advancing, and spraying and praying. Also consider all of the cops he killed where only armed with handguns. One video I saw showed sparks flying everywhere from his misses. My bet is he fired several hundred rounds and got lucky with his 5 kill shots.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 11, 2016, 08:19:40 AM
When I worked at Brigade (temporarily I promise :rolleyes:), we had admin personnel doing MOUT and reflexive fire training that was conducted by tabbed and scrolled Rangers. They weren't as good as say, an infantryman with a combat deployment.... But they were better than your average jihadist for sure.
Just promise not to think less of me now that I've admitted I spent a year working at brigade level :chuckle:
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 11, 2016, 08:21:56 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 11, 2016, 08:23:29 AM
Thanks for the info, CT. We won't tell anyone of the sordid details of your service. :chuckle:
I cringe reading my own post. I thought I had that memory fully repressed but it rears it's ugly head every now and then.
Post by: bhawley76 on July 11, 2016, 08:27:49 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on July 11, 2016, 10:47:51 AM
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.dangerandplay.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2Fmicah-Johnson-SKS-Dallas-shooting.jpg&hash=531c59eec55e645fcb1f367c2e2dc37320d34504)
I'll not link the source in the non-off-topics area, as the source has graphic images of post explosion murderer.
Post by: andrew_in_idaho on July 11, 2016, 11:05:41 AM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 11, 2016, 11:09:29 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 11, 2016, 11:10:57 AM
Post by: jay.sharkbait on July 11, 2016, 01:06:41 PM
This looks more like an AK variant.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.dangerandplay.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2Fmicah-Johnson-SKS-Dallas-shooting.jpg&hash=531c59eec55e645fcb1f367c2e2dc37320d34504)
I'll not link the source in the non-off-topics area, as the source has graphic images of post explosion murderer.
Definately AK
Post by: huntnphool on July 11, 2016, 01:10:09 PM
To the benefit of the average Joe, they do look alike. all they see is a big black plastic gun.
Better be careful with a post like this, might be deemed racist
Post by: DaveMonti on July 11, 2016, 01:13:54 PM
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 11, 2016, 01:27:25 PM
So, do ATF/Dallas PD not know the diff between AK and SKS? Or is this some libby attempt to go after SKS because they don't have the demonization that AKs have?
Post by: jay.sharkbait on July 11, 2016, 01:57:55 PM
Post by: timberfaller on July 12, 2016, 10:46:47 AM
The "Gun" was purchased "legally"
Hey LIBERALS that means NO LAW was broken until HE pulled the trigger and turned IT(gun) into a "Assault weapon"
Then HE(shooter) became a criminal aka murderer! The GUN didn't!!! IT became a TOOL!!
Where would YOUR "emotions" be if he'd used a knife of some kind and inflected greater mayhem?????
Post by: ghosthunter on July 12, 2016, 11:32:28 AM
We don't have to see this low life is the news for years to come going through the legal system.
I think they should handle all these guys with a bomb robot. :tup:
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 12, 2016, 11:35:22 AM
Really the best part of the whole thing was that they used a bomb to take him out. What a great idea.
We don't have to see this low life is the news for years to come going through the legal system.
I think they should handle all these guys with a bomb robot. :tup:
I'm glad they took him out without further harm to the police. I'm on the fence about whether using bombs to neutralize bad guys is another step toward militarization. Are grenades OK now? What about rockets? It may be a slippery slope. :dunno:
Post by: JimmyHoffa on July 12, 2016, 11:36:00 AM
Post by: CP on July 12, 2016, 11:45:25 AM
This looks more like an AK variant.
(https://hunting-washington.com/smf/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi1.wp.com%2Fwww.dangerandplay.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2016%2F07%2Fmicah-Johnson-SKS-Dallas-shooting.jpg&hash=531c59eec55e645fcb1f367c2e2dc37320d34504)
I'll not link the source in the non-off-topics area, as the source has graphic images of post explosion murderer.
Definately AK
Izhmash-Saiga 5.45x39
Post by: DaveMonti on July 12, 2016, 12:42:04 PM
Really the best part of the whole thing was that they used a bomb to take him out. What a great idea.
We don't have to see this low life is the news for years to come going through the legal system.
I think they should handle all these guys with a bomb robot. :tup:
I'm glad they took him out without further harm to the police. I'm on the fence about whether using bombs to neutralize bad guys is another step toward militarization. Are grenades OK now? What about rockets? It may be a slippery slope. :dunno:
That does make me nervous. It's not too far away to use a drone with a small missile to stop someone who is deemed a "threat to public". This is a very slippery slope.
Post by: Angry Perch on July 12, 2016, 01:55:59 PM
Really the best part of the whole thing was that they used a bomb to take him out. What a great idea.
We don't have to see this low life is the news for years to come going through the legal system.
I think they should handle all these guys with a bomb robot. :tup:
I'm glad they took him out without further harm to the police. I'm on the fence about whether using bombs to neutralize bad guys is another step toward militarization. Are grenades OK now? What about rockets? It may be a slippery slope. :dunno:
That does make me nervous. It's not too far away to use a drone with a small missile to stop someone who is deemed a "threat to public". This is a very slippery slope.
I'd agree that taking out someone who is arbitrarily deemed to be a threat to the public is a slippery slope. But once the guy is actively killing people, I don't know that the means used to take him out really matters.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 12, 2016, 02:16:45 PM
I know this scenario sounds far-fetched. But, 20 years ago, exploding a device to kill a criminal would've seemed far-fetched, too. I'm concerned about the build-up of military hardware and munitions in our local police, and what that ordinance might be used for down the road in case we have a tyrannical government take over. :dunno: Call me paranoid but i don't trust our government and it's less trustworthy every day.
Post by: Angry Perch on July 12, 2016, 02:49:30 PM
So let's use a progression of arms and see if you still don't care. The Dallas PD (or any PD), after seeing the effectiveness of blowing up a bad guy decides that if they have a house full of bad guys, they'll need an armed helicopter and buy a Cobra gunship. An incident actually happens where there are multiple bad guys inside a house owned by a bad guy. They've held up a bank where they shot someone and now are hold up in this house and are shooting back at police. No question they're bad guys. The cobra comes and and miniguns the house, killing all inside. Are you still comfortable with the new technique?
I know this scenario sounds far-fetched. But, 20 years ago, exploding a device to kill a criminal would've seemed far-fetched, too. I'm concerned about the build-up of military hardware and munitions in our local police, and what that ordinance might be used for down the road in case we have a tyrannical government take over. :dunno: Call me paranoid but i don't trust our government and it's less trustworthy every day.
It would be just plain silly to do that when you accomplish the same result with 20 bucks worth of gasoline and a match!
Honestly I don't necessarily disagree with you. But I think in the Dallas situation, somebody with an imagination and a handful of C4 came up with a pretty reasonable plan to end it now. It's probably not a great idea to stock every squad car with a remote control monster truck and a stick of dynamite.
Post by: Evil_EdwardO on July 12, 2016, 02:59:55 PM
So let's use a progression of arms and see if you still don't care. The Dallas PD (or any PD), after seeing the effectiveness of blowing up a bad guy decides that if they have a house full of bad guys, they'll need an armed helicopter and buy a Cobra gunship. An incident actually happens where there are multiple bad guys inside a house owned by a bad guy. They've held up a bank where they shot someone and now are hold up in this house and are shooting back at police. No question they're bad guys. The cobra comes and and miniguns the house, killing all inside. Are you still comfortable with the new technique?
I know this scenario sounds far-fetched. But, 20 years ago, exploding a device to kill a criminal would've seemed far-fetched, too. I'm concerned about the build-up of military hardware and munitions in our local police, and what that ordinance might be used for down the road in case we have a tyrannical government take over. :dunno: Call me paranoid but i don't trust our government and it's less trustworthy every day.
Not too far fetched, I remember the Move bombing in 1985 when I lived in the Philly area. Police dropped 2 bombs from a helicopter and ended up destroying 60-70 residences.
Post by: DaveMonti on July 12, 2016, 03:23:16 PM
Post by: jackelope on July 12, 2016, 04:39:26 PM
I grew up in Philly and the suburbs, and I remember the Move bombing as well, and was thinking the same thing. What a fiasco, and I don't think anyone was held accountable. Police also detonated two bombs at a bunker on Rattlesnake Mountain a few years ago above North Bend. I was living within sight of the bunker and heard the blasts. No active shooter there, but there was a dangerous killer inside, albeit already dead.
Were the Rattlesnake Ridge bombs cop bombs or the bad guy's booby trap/IED bombs?
Maybe a better question...were they attempting to bomb the guy out or blow the doors off the shelter?
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 12, 2016, 04:43:50 PM
Post by: JLS on July 12, 2016, 05:23:34 PM
Really the best part of the whole thing was that they used a bomb to take him out. What a great idea.
We don't have to see this low life is the news for years to come going through the legal system.
I think they should handle all these guys with a bomb robot. :tup:
I'm glad they took him out without further harm to the police. I'm on the fence about whether using bombs to neutralize bad guys is another step toward militarization. Are grenades OK now? What about rockets? It may be a slippery slope. :dunno:
If a cop is legally authorized to use lethal force it really shouldn't matter WTF he/she uses, be it their car, a rifle, a hi-lift jack handle, or C4. Their objective is to neutralize the threat without harming any innocent citizens.
Post by: jackelope on July 12, 2016, 05:28:34 PM
Rattlesnake or Ruby Ridge?
I was referring to Rattlesnake Ridge/Lake outside North Bend up here, John. Guy shot and killed his wife and daughter then holed up in his bunker he built into the side of the mountain. 24 hours later, the cops blew the door off of the bunker and found him dead with a self inflicted gunshot to the dome.
Post by: jackelope on July 12, 2016, 05:51:47 PM
Post by: DaveMonti on July 12, 2016, 06:53:07 PM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 13, 2016, 06:26:35 AM
http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/north-bend-murder-suspect-found-dead-in-bunker/
OK, now I remember.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 13, 2016, 06:54:58 AM
Really the best part of the whole thing was that they used a bomb to take him out. What a great idea.
We don't have to see this low life is the news for years to come going through the legal system.
I think they should handle all these guys with a bomb robot. :tup:
I'm glad they took him out without further harm to the police. I'm on the fence about whether using bombs to neutralize bad guys is another step toward militarization. Are grenades OK now? What about rockets? It may be a slippery slope. :dunno:
If a cop is legally authorized to use lethal force it really shouldn't matter WTF he/she uses, be it their car, a rifle, a hi-lift jack handle, or C4. Their objective is to neutralize the threat without harming any innocent citizens.
Even in Iraq, we weren't given that much leeway. If you legally take down a threat but it results in several families being homeless, how much have you really helped society?
I won't decide one way or another on this case until we get all the details. That being said, I doubt anybody is surprised that a cop killer wasn't arrested.
Post by: JLS on July 13, 2016, 07:06:30 AM
Really the best part of the whole thing was that they used a bomb to take him out. What a great idea.
We don't have to see this low life is the news for years to come going through the legal system.
I think they should handle all these guys with a bomb robot. :tup:
I'm glad they took him out without further harm to the police. I'm on the fence about whether using bombs to neutralize bad guys is another step toward militarization. Are grenades OK now? What about rockets? It may be a slippery slope. :dunno:
If a cop is legally authorized to use lethal force it really shouldn't matter WTF he/she uses, be it their car, a rifle, a hi-lift jack handle, or C4. Their objective is to neutralize the threat without harming any innocent citizens.
Even in Iraq, we weren't given that much leeway. If you legally take down a threat but it results in several families being homeless, how much have you really helped society?
I won't decide one way or another on this case until we get all the details. That being said, I doubt anybody is surprised that a cop killer wasn't arrested.
Who said anything about leaving people homeless?
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 13, 2016, 07:18:21 AM
Really the best part of the whole thing was that they used a bomb to take him out. What a great idea.
We don't have to see this low life is the news for years to come going through the legal system.
I think they should handle all these guys with a bomb robot. :tup:
I'm glad they took him out without further harm to the police. I'm on the fence about whether using bombs to neutralize bad guys is another step toward militarization. Are grenades OK now? What about rockets? It may be a slippery slope. :dunno:
If a cop is legally authorized to use lethal force it really shouldn't matter WTF he/she uses, be it their car, a rifle, a hi-lift jack handle, or C4. Their objective is to neutralize the threat without harming any innocent citizens.
Even in Iraq, we weren't given that much leeway. If you legally take down a threat but it results in several families being homeless, how much have you really helped society?
I won't decide one way or another on this case until we get all the details. That being said, I doubt anybody is surprised that a cop killer wasn't arrested.
Who said anything about leaving people homeless?
Check out the MOVE bombing people are referencing. Explosives are not as exact as people think they are. Unintended consequences can have long lasting effects and I don't think we should take that lightly.
I can tell you that as a route clearance unit whose entire job was finding bombs and destroying them, we never once set a bomb off in an urban area when we were in downtown Baghdad. That's over 200 missions on the road, and I never once was a part of a unit that did a controlled detonation inside an urban area. Never once. In Baghdad. If we can go 200 missions without bombing Baghdad, surely we can find better ways to do things inside our big cities in the US.
You're not sending a message of "We are here to help you" when you create 15 problems by solving 1.
Curtis
Post by: JLS on July 13, 2016, 07:52:15 AM
Really the best part of the whole thing was that they used a bomb to take him out. What a great idea.
We don't have to see this low life is the news for years to come going through the legal system.
I think they should handle all these guys with a bomb robot. :tup:
I'm glad they took him out without further harm to the police. I'm on the fence about whether using bombs to neutralize bad guys is another step toward militarization. Are grenades OK now? What about rockets? It may be a slippery slope. :dunno:
If a cop is legally authorized to use lethal force it really shouldn't matter WTF he/she uses, be it their car, a rifle, a hi-lift jack handle, or C4. Their objective is to neutralize the threat without harming any innocent citizens.
Even in Iraq, we weren't given that much leeway. If you legally take down a threat but it results in several families being homeless, how much have you really helped society?
I won't decide one way or another on this case until we get all the details. That being said, I doubt anybody is surprised that a cop killer wasn't arrested.
Who said anything about leaving people homeless?
Check out the MOVE bombing people are referencing. Explosives are not as exact as people think they are. Unintended consequences can have long lasting effects and I don't think we should take that lightly.
I can tell you that as a route clearance unit whose entire job was finding bombs and destroying them, we never once set a bomb off in an urban area when we were in downtown Baghdad. That's over 200 missions on the road, and I never once was a part of a unit that did a controlled detonation inside an urban area. Never once. In Baghdad. If we can go 200 missions without bombing Baghdad, surely we can find better ways to do things inside our big cities in the US.
You're not sending a message of "We are here to help you" when you create 15 problems by solving 1.
Curtis
I get your point, and I think you are completely missing mine. My last sentence was " Their objective is to neutralize the threat without harming innocent citizens". I fail to see how this is advocating what your are describing.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 13, 2016, 07:58:18 AM
Quote
Explosives are not as exact as people think they are. Unintended consequences can have long lasting effects and I don't think we should take that lightly.
We're lucky that the bomb didn't hurt anybody else. This time.
Post by: JLS on July 13, 2016, 09:04:09 AM
I think the key phrase you're missing is this:QuoteExplosives are not as exact as people think they are. Unintended consequences can have long lasting effects and I don't think we should take that lightly.
We're lucky that the bomb didn't hurt anybody else. This time.
No, I didn't miss that. Whatever method is chosen to exact lethal force must be done so with collateral damage in mind, regardless of whether it's C4 or an M4 carbine.
I have worked with bomb technicians here in Washington who were very good at their craft and routinely did explosive breaching on residences. I have no doubt the bomb techs in Dallas were very good, if not better. I highly doubt they chose that route lightly.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 13, 2016, 09:06:32 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 13, 2016, 09:34:20 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 13, 2016, 09:45:27 AM
Explosive breaching is completely different from using explosives to kill US citizens. Make a collateral mistake with a rifle and one person dies. Do it with a bomb and many can die, or a structure can come down or become unstable. But it's not just that. Where do we draw the line on how we kill citizens who've not been given due process? Where do we draw the line on the militarization of our police departments? I don't want our police to die at the hand of a criminal. But I also would like to see some of these people caught so we can find out more about them and their associates. We've had three very high profile mass shooting cases - San Bernardino, Orlando, and Dallas - in which the shooter(s) was killed and little other useful information was gained after the incident. Some conspiracy theorists are struck by the coincidence that all of these happened within a couple of days of the release of political scandal stories. Although I'm not in that camp, I'd like to hear from the shooters who hired or inspired them. If they had accomplices, etc.
:tup:
Post by: JLS on July 13, 2016, 10:16:38 AM
Explosive breaching is completely different from using explosives to kill US citizens. Make a collateral mistake with a rifle and one person dies. Do it with a bomb and many can die, or a structure can come down or become unstable. But it's not just that. Where do we draw the line on how we kill citizens who've not been given due process?
My comparison with breaching was only that explosives can be used in a more directed manner than a lot of folks realize. Can things go wrong? Certainly. I'm not in any way advocating irresponsible use of tools to exact lethal force.
When a person creates a situation that authorizes an LEO to use lethal force, they are no longer entitled to due process at that point. They have put in place all of the statutory/legal thresholds for a seizure of life. How that life is seized is irrelevant (standard disclaimer: SO LONG as it is done in a way that eliminates and/or minimizes risk to innocent civilians). Courts have also ruled that the totality of the circumstances may negate liability should an LEO kill an innocent civilian provided that they were not acting recklessly or negligently, and the overall risk to human life was sufficient to justify the actions that led to the accidental killing.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 13, 2016, 10:22:23 AM
What if the same robot could shoot a disabling electrical charge or tranquilizer? What if we concentrated on disabling these types of people so we could interview them later? I get why cops don't shoot for the legs like in the movies. But developing ways to capture these people could be a huge help to police and the public at large.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 13, 2016, 10:33:41 AM
So, just kill 'em and forget any important intel we might gleen. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. When you blow people up, you're certainly not going to get their side of the story. Only the government's side.
What if the same robot could shoot a disabling electrical charge or tranquilizer? What if we concentrated on disabling these types of people so we could interview them later? I get why cops don't shoot for the legs like in the movies. But developing ways to capture these people could be a huge help to police and the public at large.
We actually were able to get a pistol to fire remotely with our robot overseas.
We floated the idea upstream but it never caught on.
Post by: JLS on July 13, 2016, 10:37:55 AM
So, just kill 'em and forget any important intel we might gleen. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. When you blow people up, you're certainly not going to get their side of the story. Only the government's side.
What if the same robot could shoot a disabling electrical charge or tranquilizer? What if we concentrated on disabling these types of people so we could interview them later? I get why cops don't shoot for the legs like in the movies. But developing ways to capture these people could be a huge help to police and the public at large.
The ideas you are floating would create more risk for on-scene officers and civilians alike. Bad guys know how to defeat Tasers. Tranquilizers are not immediately effective. In a perfect world, these might be great solutions.
I am guessing the on-scene Dallas PD officers had one goal in mind, stop the threat ASAP. If two more people die in an attempt to get information, was it worth it? I'm willing to bet that if you asked most cops how many innocent civilians or fellow officers they would be willing to sacrifice in order to try to get information the answer would be "none".
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 13, 2016, 10:59:19 AM
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 13, 2016, 11:07:41 AM
I get what you're saying, JLS, I just disagree. We should be trying harder to find ways to capture criminals alive. As terrorism becomes more of a threat, more benefit comes from capturing terrorists to find out what their buddies are planning. We know from the Middle East and from terrorists caught domestically that they turn over without too much convincing. In addition, it is imperative that policing in this country change to the extent that it's possible. If we don't change the conversation of "well, the gloves are off. Kill him.", to "how do we neutralize the threat without deadly force?", we're going to then have to deal with increasing rioting and civil disobedience. You know as well as I that you can have a department with 300 justified kills in a row and just one creates the BS protests. This isn't just about the militarization of the police and due process, although I am concerned about those. It's about also coming up with solutions which show the public that the police are doing everything in their power not to kill. There are dozens of non-lethal responses that may be able to be deployed instead of using explosives to kill someone.
PMan - what I find the most ironic about this is that you and I both come from a background of primarily using lethal force. :dunno:
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 13, 2016, 11:29:54 AM
Post by: JLS on July 13, 2016, 11:34:14 AM
You know as well as I that you can have a department with 300 justified kills in a row and just one creates the BS protests. This isn't just about the militarization of the police and due process, although I am concerned about those. It's about also coming up with solutions which show the public that the police are doing everything in their power not to kill. There are dozens of non-lethal responses that may be able to be deployed instead of using explosives to kill someone.
I don't disagree with you here, and thank you for the civil discussion.
I personally believe that the issue at hand is not so much the police killing someone. I think it is merely indicative of a much larger problem of real and/or perceived racial and sociological divides. I think many people direct their political frustrations towards the police, when in reality they are not even part of the equation in many instances.
I would much rather see efforts and money directed towards the low income class families that feel very much disenfranchised by our country. I would rather see efforts and money directed towards substance abuse treatment and mental illness treatment. I would rather see communities learn to empower their own and feel that they can legitimately change their circumstance for the better. All of these would greatly reduce the tensions that are so prevalent in our society today.
Post by: pianoman9701 on July 13, 2016, 11:39:18 AM
Post by: Hi-Liter on July 13, 2016, 02:12:31 PM
By U.S. Army definition, a selective-fire rifle chambered for a cartridge of intermediate power. If applied to any semi-automatic firearm regardless of its cosmetic similarity to a true assault rifle, the term is incorrect. Assault Weapon. Any weapon used in an assault (see WEAPON).
NRA-ILA | Glossary
https://www.nraila.org/about/glossary/
Post by: 724wd on July 13, 2016, 04:25:03 PM
Post by: konradcountry on July 13, 2016, 10:41:35 PM
I know this scenario sounds far-fetched. But, 20 years ago, exploding a device to kill a criminal would've seemed far-fetched, too. I'm concerned about the build-up of military hardware and munitions in our local police, and what that ordinance might be used for down the road in case we have a tyrannical government take over. :dunno: Call me paranoid but i don't trust our government and it's less trustworthy every day.
It's actually not the first time it has happened. Read about the MOVE bombing of 1985.
My concern is that police are not getting proper equipment at these protests in an attempt to appear less militarized. I saw pictures of police out there with glocks and no helmets. Why did they not have ARs in their vehicles?
Post by: konradcountry on July 13, 2016, 10:49:56 PM
I think the key phrase you're missing is this:QuoteExplosives are not as exact as people think they are. Unintended consequences can have long lasting effects and I don't think we should take that lightly.
We're lucky that the bomb didn't hurt anybody else. This time.
He was barricaded inside a concrete parking garage and didn't have any hostages. The risk of hurting anyone else was minimal.
But if it makes you feel any better it won't be long until all SWAT teams have robots that can shoot.
Post by: jmscon on July 14, 2016, 12:37:33 AM
I think the key phrase you're missing is this:QuoteExplosives are not as exact as people think they are. Unintended consequences can have long lasting effects and I don't think we should take that lightly.
We're lucky that the bomb didn't hurt anybody else. This time.
He was barricaded inside a concrete parking garage and didn't have any hostages. The risk of hurting anyone else was minimal.
But if it makes you feel any better it won't be long until all SWAT teams have robots that can shoot.
This time.
I have very mixed feelings about this. I support due process but with an active shooter....
The robot needs a can of bear repellant, or wasp killer.
Post by: ctwiggs1 on July 14, 2016, 05:16:10 AM
I think the key phrase you're missing is this:QuoteExplosives are not as exact as people think they are. Unintended consequences can have long lasting effects and I don't think we should take that lightly.
We're lucky that the bomb didn't hurt anybody else. This time.
He was barricaded inside a concrete parking garage and didn't have any hostages. The risk of hurting anyone else was minimal.
But if it makes you feel any better it won't be long until all SWAT teams have robots that can shoot.
You may want to check your facts. Also, you're missing the point.