Home Main Category Second Amendment/Politics

Full Auto vs Semi-auto

NomadacNomadac Senior MemberPosts: 902 Senior Member
Full Auto vs Semi-auto, which is more effective? Would the shooter have killed more people if he fired semi-auto?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2PFY8MNVuY

I saw a similar video years ago that demonstrated the same thing.

What about is he used a this:
Death toll rises to 85 in Bastille Day attack in Nice.
Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, 31, plowed a 20-ton truck into crowds on the Promenade des Anglais seafront in Nice during a fireworks celebration on Bastille Day, France's key national holiday.

Eighty-six people were killed, all but three of them at the time of the attack. A total of 303 people were taken to hospital for medical treatment.
Ten children were among the victims. More than 200 people were injured.

How easy would it have been to steal a large truck and crash into the crowd?
«1

Replies

  • Make_My_DayMake_My_Day Senior Member Posts: 7,912 Senior Member
    Given the distance between the shooter and the crowd I don't think he even intended to be accurate. He was using the "spray and pray" method because trying to hit targets at that distance would not be as effective using single-bullet firing.
    JOE MCCARTHY WAS RIGHT:
    THE DEMOCRATS ARE THE NEW COMMUNISTS!
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    It was a pretty good ways from the hotel to the concert venue. He wasn't known as being a long(er) range shooter. With people packed in like sardines at a concert, and at the distance he was firing, his 'simulated full auto fire' was probably the way to go for maximum casualties. And especially when they started stampeding and bunching up even tighter.

    Emptying magazines (30 and 50 round) quickly by spraying them into the crowds probably gave him a higher probability of hits than aimed fire. It was about 400 yards to to the concert from his position, and he was around close to 100 yards high on the 32nd floor. That is going to make the bullet trajectory higher than on level ground. He went for quantity of rounds downrange rather than quality of aimed fire, and the higher probability of hits due to the amount of bullets fired into the given area.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • NCFUBARNCFUBAR Senior Member Posts: 4,324 Senior Member
    The deaths where from gunshots as far as I have heard but the 500 injured I don’t believe were all directly from gunshots. I believe some were trip and falls, trampling, heart attacks, etc but the media throws all injuries into one lump sum to make it more dramatic. As to semi-auto vs bump-fire ... at the distance he was (400ish yards) firing semi-auto more deliberately into “groups” might actually have resulted in more deadly hits if he had more magnification than a red dot but the shear volume of the bump-fire had to yield hits also. Myself, quality over quantity but maybe for him and his skill set quantity was more deadly.

    Honestly though I am not much on FA anyway ... waste of perfectly good ammo 95% of the time and that 5% is under circumstances I don’t see myself in now. I’ll take a good bolt gun in a good caliber and distance is my friend.
    “The further a society drifts from truth ... the more it will hate those who speak it."
    - George Orwell
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 7,999 Senior Member
    Given the distance between the shooter and the crowd I don't think he even intended to be accurate. He was using the "spray and pray" method because trying to hit targets at that distance would not be as effective using single-bullet firing.

    It was 300 yards to his front side targets and maybe 100 yds across. You dont even need to dope wind well and it is a 2 MOA come up on a 223. Which you wouldnt even need to add on a torso sized target.

    edit: trying to hit targets would have been a lot more effective. I'm sorry, but to say otherwise is a ignorant statement. You really need to get to any range where you can back up and try it out.

    We are not talking long range here, this is just a bit beyond point blank range. A bolt rifle from wal mart is half competent hands would have more "effective", and if he would have been competent with a autoloader, it would have been a heck of a lot worse.

    To the OP:
    Full auto is best for keeping heads down and to make jiggly bikini videos. It isnt more or less effective (except in the jiggly vids) it is different, not better or worse, just two different things. Accuracy by volume, or accuracy by design.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    It absolutely depends on the goal. Large crowd like that spray and pray will send more rounds down range much quicker. More disperse crown semi auto likely better. In Vegas seems shooter did both.

    As for trucks or cars they can be used, but most large events have security barriers. Remember the jackwagon in Charlottesville tried to use a car and killed 1 and injured 19. That was with large crowds on a public street. Basically an ideal situation for that type of attack.

    In short vehicle attacks can be just as deadly, but they require an ideal set of circumstances and can be defended against by easy and cheap concrete barriers. Firearms are more flexible and can be deployed basically anywhere and FA can be wicked effective in dense crowds.

    Charlottesville attack was not meant to kill a bunch of people. Street was not anywhere near packed with people. And he was blocked by cars in the street.

    If you're gonna talk vehicle attack on a large crowd packing the streets, then let's spec out the vehicle. Ford F-450 with a flatbed instead a box bed(more on that bed choice later). Truck will be diesel powered, auto transmission, and 4WD for obvious reasons. Vehicle has high ground clearance and plenty of rolling weight. Cowcatcher bumper guard on front. High ground clearance is for not getting stuck on bodies building up under truck, and bumper guard for protecting radiator.

    Now about that truck bed choice. Bed will have tube steel box frame with wooden bed. 1/4" thick by 24" long by 2" wide pieces of cold rolled steel spaced 18" apart and welded horizontal to the ground to the tube steel side rails after being sharpened for 18" of their length.

    Target would be typical protest march with a few hundred thousand participants packed from sidewalk to sidewalk screaming so loud that they occasionally cough up a lung. Lots of noise.

    Running that vehicle into a crowd of thousands, from the rear of the crowd, at high speed would result in thousands of casualties, dead and wounded, before it could be stopped. Striking from the rear is important for a couple of reasons. They don't see it coming, and there's plenty of crowd noise to cover the approach. With any luck the attacker could reach the front of the protest and meet an end when the police shoot the truck cab to doll rags. No explosives needed to cause HUGE mass casualties in a crowd, just a little planning, and something between ones ears besides wet sawdust.

    And I came up with that without any prior thought on the matter. Just read your post and started typing, and thinking.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • DanoobieDanoobie Member Posts: 95 Member
    If you look at the kill ratio, IMO he wasn't trying to kill people. He wounded almost 8 times as many as he killed.
    On the bald assumption his motive was a terror attack, he was successful in wounding most of his victims. The
    rest of the crowd was mixed in with wounded, bleeding, screaming people. How many of those concert goers, or their
    families or friends will be attending concerts any time soon, if ever? IMO, he successfully intimidated the whole concert.
    And all the king's horses, and all the king's men will never make those people feel safe, ever again.

    Some liberals may want to ban guns right now, but I bet most of those concert goers will be sleeping with guns under their pillows
    for the rest of their lives.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Maybe. That probably would be close to the perfect scenario and if attempted in DC there's at least a 40% chance you're shot and killed by police before even reaching the crowd. You'd definitely want to Target a city less experienced with those types of crowds.

    Trying that scenario in DC would be a fool's errand. I've been there, and the streets are too confined and traffic too congested. And WAY too many choke points for a vehicle. Now San Francisco or any large California city would be a prime target rich environment. The cops don't really do much in the big marches out there except sort of keep the parade participants and parade protesters from doing too much damage to one another.

    Your estimated dead and wounded from that truck attack are highly optimistic in the low range. A truck that size traveling 60+ mph would be slowed down some, but not much at initial impact. And it has enough torque to keep speed up and plow through a crowd. A few vehicles could stop it if they were 6 deep in front of it, but not soft squishy bodies. Transmission might downshift one gear, and find a 'sweet spot' of momentum and maintain it until it until it hit something immovable or the driver was killed.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,890 Senior Member
    Why hasn't it if it's so easy and there are supposedly so many terrorist who want to bring death and destruction to America?
    Doesn't this imply that the end result the terrorists are looking for is death and destruction? What if those are just the tools get something else done? Maybe a legislative or societal change? Maybe a behavioral change? I've not worked on terrorism, I know that, but I've read enough of history to know that sometimes what folks say they want to do (kill all of a certain group for example) is actually a screen for what they want done (disruptions in freedoms, changing people's perception of another group, consolidating their own power, whatever.)

    Look at the recent incident in Vegas. It's possible that death and direct wounding by gunshots was secondary to what the Vegas shooter wanted. If he's looking for a high death toll, he'd have used something more effective. I would speculate that for some reason he wanted a lot of people hurt, and whether it came from direct action (gunshots) or indirect action (getting run over, self-injury in avoiding the gunfire, etc.) it didn't really matter to him.
    I'm just here for snark.
  • breamfisherbreamfisher Senior Member Posts: 13,890 Senior Member
    Not meaning to downplay that. But we also know that death and wounding is a great motivator (if it just saves one life...) Maybe I'm ascribing big picture motivations where they're not present....
    I'm just here for snark.
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    I would agree with those who say that accurate semi-auto fire is more effective in the majority of circumstances. However, 20,000 plus adults packed into an acre or two, at 400-500 yards changes that. All this guy had to do, in his elevated position, was keep his gun running and pointed towards the crowd. Each bullet had a good chance of hitting multiple people, especially the .308 rounds. Imagine what a D-Day gunner with an MG42 and tracers could have done in such a circumstance - probably 10 times the casualties before he burnt out the first barrel.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    bisley wrote: »
    I would agree with those who say that accurate semi-auto fire is more effective in the majority of circumstances. However, 20,000 plus adults packed into an acre or two, at 400-500 yards changes that. All this guy had to do, in his elevated position, was keep his gun running and pointed towards the crowd. Each bullet had a good chance of hitting multiple people, especially the .308 rounds. Imagine what a D-Day gunner with an MG42 and tracers could have done in such a circumstance - probably 10 times the casualties before he burnt out the first barrel.
    I haven't seen anything concerning .308/7.62x51 rounds. Were they the incendiary rounds reportedly fired at the jet fuel storage tanks?
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    Why hasn't it if it's so easy and there are supposedly so many terrorist who want to bring death and destruction to America?

    I ask myself that question quite often.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Wambli Ska wrote: »
    And what part of what happened in OKC would be difficult to re-create?

    After the OKC bombing, prilled ammoniom nitrate was coated with a substance that made it inferior for making explosives; it won't absorb the fuel oil, and urea was added to it for the same reason. You can't buy a 50# bag of ammonium nitrate at the big box store and use it for Tannerite for this reason. It is coated, and loaded with urea. Separating the urea from a 50# bag is a big pain in the rear; doing that to a couple tons of it would be a work intensive nightmare. And you still have to crush it into a coarse powder, like white cornmeal to negate the coating.

    Explosives like dynamite, and the caps, are more tightly controlled since then, too. Robbing banks would be a lot safer than trying to break into a powder magazine, even one on a remote blasting site. You can make your own explosives to set it off, but it would be safer to just play Russian Roulette with a semiauto with a round in the chamber. They're all extremely volatile and extremely sensitive to shock and static electricity. And the fumes from their manufacture will eat brain cells faster than meth.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    The part where you aquire enough of the right stuff and rig up a high explosive booster for detonation without blowing yourself up or arising the suspicion of law enforcement. As you said in your previous these guys usually aren't geniuses.

    A M-80 will detonate ammonia nitrate. When was the last time you saw one of those. It's certainly is not rocket science.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    Actually never in my lifetime. They stopped selling the real ones decades ago. The ones they sell now cheap crap. Basically a few grams of tightly packed black powder in cardboard.

    Hardly, I get them every 4th of July and New years eve. The good ones where you can feel the concussion when they go off.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • BufordBuford Senior Member Posts: 6,721 Senior Member
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-80_(explosive)

    The m-80's they sell now are not the real deal. Well unless they are illegal. Original M-80's held 2-3 grams of flash powder. Federal law now limits firecrackers to 50 mg. Basically they look like m-80's but have a tiny fraction of the power. And yes as a young advanced chemistry student I did plenty of experimentation with all sorts of commercial grade fireworks as any good future scientist/engineer should.

    These M-80s are the same ones I played with when I was a snot nosed kid. As to being illegal maybe but as long as you know someone they are available during the holidays as with mortars and all the other cool stuff. Kinda like illegal drugs they are hard to find also, but if you look.
    Just look at the flowers Lizzie, just look at the flowers.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Buford wrote: »
    These M-80s are the same ones I played with when I was a snot nosed kid. As to being illegal maybe but as long as you know someone they are available during the holidays as with mortars and all the other cool stuff. Kinda like illegal drugs they are hard to find also, but if you look.

    https://www.skylighter.com/

    I'm not sayin'. Just sayin'. Roll your own. :tooth:
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • snake284snake284 Senior Member Posts: 22,429 Senior Member
    tennmike wrote: »
    https://www.skylighter.com/

    I'm not sayin'. Just sayin'. Roll your own. :tooth:

    Just drop about 40grains of Pyrodex down your smoke poll and cover with plenty of wadding and let 'er rip!
    Daddy, what's an enabler?
    Son that's somebody with nothing to do with his time but keep me in trouble with mom.
  • john9001john9001 Senior Member Posts: 668 Senior Member
    No liberal is going to ask for a ban on trucks, so a gun has to be used so congress can "do something" like banning guns.
  • BigslugBigslug Senior Member Posts: 9,398 Senior Member
    Full auto is generally pretty useless in stuff that isn't some combination of heavy, made for the purpose, running at a low cyclic rate, or shooting little pistols cartridges. No basic infantry rifle system fits that description. They're all pretty squirrely when you swing the switch all the way to the stop.

    Vickers makes some good points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cosc-RO_oMg

    Also reference the British Mad Minute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute the record for which was 36 hits on a 48" target at 300 yards WITH A WWI-ERA BOLT ACTION FED WITH STRIPPER CLIPS.

    Given he was basically shooting into a can of sardines, Paddock probably could have done just as much damage with aimed fire from a single shot Martini from the 1870's, to say nothing of the options of trucks, explosives, and airplanes.
    WWJMBD?

    "Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
  • TugarTugar Senior Member Posts: 2,435 Senior Member
    [video]

    The mad minute challenge. No i didn't watch on 20 minutes. :p
    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.
    Winston Churchill
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    This happened yesterday. Bet you didn't hear about it on the MSM. Lots of folks don't have that 'freedom' Alpha spoke of over there in the Mideast and Africa, and they still die by the hundreds.

    http://www.latimes.com/world/africa/la-fg-somalia-shabab-bombs-20171016-story.html
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • bisleybisley Senior Member Posts: 10,813 Senior Member
    We do. It happened in Boston. 1.5 kills per dead/soon to be dead terrorist.

    My primary point is that there is nothing we can do to consistently stop a determined suicide attacker. There will always be some way that they can kill people. But some ways are more deadly than others. Some are way easier than others. As always we have to balance protecting the rights of Americans with limiting the potential death toll from the inevitable deranged psychos. The death toll is part of the "cost of freedom".

    This is about the only logical argument I have heard liberals try to make about terrorism. It fails because it does not recognize that global terrorism will be a hundred times worse if western nations do not continue to defeat most of it before it happens here. But it does at least sound logical, when taken out of context from everything else that is going on in the rest of the world.

    My question is why do liberals not accept this same basic logic about why we should not make stricter gun laws? If they don't want the government to do things to make us safer from worldwide Islamic terrorism, why do they want the government to make gun laws that they pretend will make us safer from domestic terrorism? They don't want to 'restrict liberty,' when it comes to Syrian refugees or illegal immigrants, but they don't mind it at all when it only restricts the liberty of legitimate citizens, who have been living under the same laws for 200 plus years without noticeably impacting the safety of others.
  • sgtrock21sgtrock21 Senior Member Posts: 1,933 Senior Member
    Bigslug wrote: »
    Full auto is generally pretty useless in stuff that isn't some combination of heavy, made for the purpose, running at a low cyclic rate, or shooting little pistols cartridges. No basic infantry rifle system fits that description. They're all pretty squirrely when you swing the switch all the way to the stop.

    Vickers makes some good points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cosc-RO_oMg

    Also reference the British Mad Minute: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mad_minute the record for which was 36 hits on a 48" target at 300 yards WITH A WWI-ERA BOLT ACTION FED WITH STRIPPER CLIPS.

    Given he was basically shooting into a can of sardines, Paddock probably could have done just as much damage with aimed fire from a single shot Martini from the 1870's, to say nothing of the options of trucks, explosives, and airplanes.
    The shooter knew he was under a time constraint. Aimed may have resulted in more deaths but less overall carnage. I have absolutely no idea what the shooter's goal was. I have 3 Martinis. Providence tool company 45/70 "sporter". .22LR "Parker rifled" trainer, and .303 carbine. All three are very accurate.
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 12,190 Senior Member
    On the flip side why are conservatives so willing to sacrifice every other freedom and human right OTHER than gun rights in failed attempts to keep us slightly safer. Massive government surveillance - sure why not, the 4th amendment is just a suggestion. Rapey searches to fly - flying is a privilege, bend over. Racial profiling - I'm not being profiled so doesn't affect me. Highly restrictive immigration policies - those people are brown and not American who cares. Massive increase in government spending and bloated bureaucracy with zero accountability - perfectly fine if it's allegedly to help keep is safe as long as it doesn't help poor people. Torture - sure no problem alleged terrorists have no rights. Extra judicial killings - again terrorists have no rights. Government report about right wing terrorism - AAAAAAAGH GOVERNMENT OVER REACH, YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY APPLY ANY OF THE ABOVE TO PEOPLE WHO LOOK OR THINK LIKE ME, TERRORISM IS ONLY BROWN PEOPLE AAAAAGH, I ONLY LIKE TO GIVE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE!!!!

    Not sure what your so upset about. Every time I fly I go through the same thing as everyone else, sometimes more because of last name is the same as a known criminal.
    When I purchase a firearm, again even with my concealed carry permit and proper ID every single purchase comes back with a conditional approval because of my last name and ssn being close to again a well known criminal. I need a UPIN issued by the FBI to purchase a firearm without issue
    I used to hold a TS/SCI clearance while in the Military and again as a Civilian, now a TS and still get the same issues. Being a white guy in South Florida, in many neighborhoods I am the guy that gets the weird look from local as well as the Police. The Government infringes on everybody, only certain people make the headlines about it.
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    On the flip side why are conservatives so willing to sacrifice every other freedom and human right OTHER than gun rights in failed attempts to keep us slightly safer. Massive government surveillance - sure why not, the 4th amendment is just a suggestion. Rapey searches to fly - flying is a privilege, bend over.

    BOTH parties are guilty of that surveillance mess. The Patriot Act went way too far under 'Shrub' Bush, and Obama made it worse.


    Racial profiling - I'm not being profiled so doesn't affect me.

    Profiling, racial or otherwise works. You look for who is committing the crime. Israelis have been doing it for decades, and it works.


    Highly restrictive immigration policies - those people are brown and not American who cares.

    First off, THERE IS NO RIGHT TO EMIGRATE TO ANOTHER COUNTRY AS AN IMMIGRANT. PERIOD! If you don't have the ability to support yourself in the country you emigrate to, then the country has the right to bar entry. Get over this one world touchy-feely crap. We got enough home grown anchors dragging us down without importing more welfare cases.


    Massive increase in government spending and bloated bureaucracy with zero accountability - perfectly fine if it's allegedly to help keep is safe as long as it doesn't help poor people.

    Again, that is a bipartisan thing. Obama doubled the national debt and then some with nothing to show for it. And both parties were participants, except for that AHCA thing. Repubs knew it was a boondoggle but didn't have the votes to kill it then, or the guts to kill it now.

    Torture - sure no problem alleged terrorists have no rights. Extra judicial killings - again terrorists have no rights.

    Waterboarding at Gitmo is a pretty mild torture as torture goes. At best, terrorists are illegal combatants, and in previous wars they were executed pretty quickly. As to whacking terrorists with missiles from drones, that's a good thing. And if their family members get whacked, too, because they were there, then that's what is called collateral damage due to the terrorists cowards using family/civilians as human shields. As to Americans taken out in the sandbox fighting with and lending material support to the enemy, they get what they deserve. Observe what went on in WWII. Some Japanese, Italians, and Germans that were citizens of the U.S. went back to their homelands to fight for their home countries. Ya think we asked the enemy before the battles if they had any U.S. citizens among them? Nope. Not necessary. They wore the uniform of the enemy and were treated as such.

    Government report about right wing terrorism - AAAAAAAGH GOVERNMENT OVER REACH, YOU CAN'T POSSIBLY APPLY ANY OF THE ABOVE TO PEOPLE WHO LOOK OR THINK LIKE ME, TERRORISM IS ONLY BROWN PEOPLE AAAAAGH, I ONLY LIKE TO GIVE GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO INFRINGE ON THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PEOPLE!!!!

    And the reason that YOU are groped at the airport and other places of public transportation is that YOU and people like you are against profiling, so everyone gets put in the pot of random gropees. You can't be getting all PMS about getting groped when you are against profiling. It's an either/or thing. Sitting on the fence just gets you a buttload of splinters. :tooth:
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
  • john9001john9001 Senior Member Posts: 668 Senior Member
    I don't fly anymore because it's too dangerous, I know it's dangerous because of all the security, they wouldn't have all that security if it was safe.
  • Diver43Diver43 Senior Member Posts: 12,190 Senior Member
    Yep, everything is fine as long as it is OTHER people's rights being violated.

    "First they came for the.....

    For some reason you want to call foul because of security that attempts to help keep you alive, so, if no profiling, no searches, you would rather another plane hijacked? Not use a tool to catch terrorists before they strike? Guess we just ignore all dangers, give everyone 100% freedom to do whatever they please and since everyone is free and not mad there will never be another 9-11 or building blown up in OKC. The unicorns will protect us
    You cant have it both ways in the world today
    Logistics cannot win a war, but its absence or inadequacy can cause defeat. FM100-5
  • VarmintmistVarmintmist Senior Member Posts: 7,999 Senior Member
    Yep, everything is fine as long as it is OTHER people's rights being violated.

    "First they came for the.....

    You do not have a right to fly.
    You do not have a right not to be profiled.
    No one of this or any other country has the right to pass the boarder of any country without first being cleared by the govt of that country. That power is not only in our constitution, the Supremes ruled that it lies solely in the executive branch, until now.
    Govt spending on the military is a basic duty of the govt. Transferring wealth to lazy people (see other post soon) is not.
    As to torture, as a enemy combatant w/o a uniform, the US and any other country is perfectly within its right to shoot them on sight as well as treat them how they need to. Rules of war. They have a right to stand up and shoot, then they get to deal with the consequences. (FYI same argument about people re coloring the 1st amendment to suit their childish behavior)


    None of your complaints listed, unless one assumes the direct transfer of a citizens wealth to another, violates any of the rights listed in the constitution or basic human rights.
    It's boring, and your lack of creativity knows no bounds.
  • tennmiketennmike Senior Member Posts: 27,457 Senior Member
    Diver43 wrote: »
    For some reason you want to call foul because of security that attempts to help keep you alive, so, if no profiling, no searches, you would rather another plane hijacked? Not use a tool to catch terrorists before they strike? Guess we just ignore all dangers, give everyone 100% freedom to do whatever they please and since everyone is free and not mad there will never be another 9-11 or building blown up in OKC. The unicorns will protect us
    You cant have it both ways in the world today

    Just pass national reciprocity, allow firearms on airplanes and other modes of public transit, and the terrorists will be outnumbered and outgunned...............and dead if they try that crap.
      I refuse to answer that question on the grounds that I don't know the answer”
    ― Douglas Adams
Sign In or Register to comment.
Magazine Cover

GET THE MAGAZINE Subscribe & Save

Temporary Price Reduction

SUBSCRIBE NOW

Give a Gift   |   Subscriber Services

PREVIEW THIS MONTH'S ISSUE

GET THE NEWSLETTER Join the List and Never Miss a Thing.

Get the top Guns & Ammo stories delivered right to your inbox every week.

Advertisement