Front Porches

“For the past 15 years, someone has been murdered on a porch every three weeks on average, according to Chicago police records. Many are shot because they find themselves innocently in the line of fire. Sometimes they are caught in the middle of drug deals or gang violence. Other times it’s about who they know or hang out with.”
 
See The disappearing front porch
It’s the title of TFA that caught my eye. My house has a front porch. In summer, I do hear gunshots when I’m outside frequently, but it’s not gang-violence, just police/security guards/target shooters taking practice at a local pistol-range a few miles away. It’s a different story in Chicago where gunshots have apparently displaced normal conversation to some extent. I’m glad I live in Canada, a relatively peaceful and harmonious country where people are kind to each other more often than not and firearms are used for hunting and target-shooting not making a point.

TLW has used the front porch very little. She prefers the blistering heat on the patio on the south side of our home, but I like the cool shade of the veranda which is a great place for shade-loving potted plants like bleeding hearts. The only violence I’ve seen on my front porch is the occasional dumping of wash-water into the pots, killing two of my beloved plants… I don’t know why that happens. We have plumbing close by… Anyway, bleeding hearts are easy to propagate.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in family, firearms, politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Front Porches

  1. oiaohm wrote, “The reality is full automatic weapons that foot soldiers carry cannot be used on full auto without wrecking themselves.”

    Full-auto rifles have been proven to work reliably over many battles and decades. Even the crusty stuff used in WWI could fire ~20K rounds full auto without failure or pause. The modern stuff is much better in design and has better ammunition.

  2. oiaohm wrote, “With a full automatic weapon like the M240 no point carrying more than 1000 rounds unless you can also carry a spare barrel. Yet a person with a 3 shot burst weapon with a single barrel can shot 5000 rounds. So this is a 5 to 1 problem.”

    This is a false comparison. The comparison is between having adequate firepower when it’s needed and being overrun/dead. No one cares if the barrel wears out if it saves lives. It’s very unlikely that 1000 rounds will ever be used in any particular encounter but it is useful to have it. It is very unlikely that infantry will fire 1000 rounds in bursts or singly.

    My father had only one occasion to use full auto. They were at the Rhine in WWII. They used their Bofors 20mm AA gun as a machine-gun and truckloads of ammunition were delivered to them with one order, “send it that way”. They fired til the barrels were red and swapped barrels and carried on. The alternative was to cross the Rhine under German full-auto fire. It was a no-brainer. There are times when full auto is very desirable and if it’s not there you can’t use it so it has to be there. Bursts are very useful at close work but useless at longer range.

  3. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson watch that video again and listen closer to the fire pattern. Gunner is shooting the full-auto in burst pattern and he really does not have a choice if he wishes to stay alive. So video was not really showing “automatic fire in Afghanistan”. But a skilled operator making a full auto behave like a burst fire weapon. So what difference would it made in those cases if the person was holding a chain burst weapon instead the answer is basically nothing in operational actions same number of trigger pulls and release either way to fire the rounds and have a weapon that lasts.

    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-22-68/c05.htm
    Reason section 10 here note how fast a barrel stuffs up.

    M240 might be a full auto-weapon really its not that great when you wake up you have a max of 10 mins of firing before having to replace the barrel. To get 10 mins out a barrel you have to fire the weapon in a burst pattern anyhow. Less than 1 Min if you just hold the trigger down. This means if person holding the M240 is shot and their trigger finger jams the gun is stuffed. This is not very helpful.

    The USA mil has cancelled the planned replacement full-auto weapon to the M240 with weapon makers told to design chain burst weapon instead.

    Full-auto weapons like M240 is totally not a usable as true full-auto weapon on the battle field due to being to hard on barrels and consuming too much ammo.

    During WWII, it was a huge burden for soldiers to even carry 300 rounds. Now 1000 rounds is very possible.
    With a full automatic weapon like the M240 no point carrying more than 1000 rounds unless you can also carry a spare barrel. Yet a person with a 3 shot burst weapon with a single barrel can shot 5000 rounds. So this is a 5 to 1 problem.

    There is a reason why the fixed guns are using a rotating barrel or a lot bigger barrel its heat.

    Burst firing M16 or other Burst firing weapons barrels hold up way better. 3 shot burst in a target is just as likely to kill a target as a 8 to 10 shot burst out a full-auto.

    The reality is full automatic weapons that foot soldiers carry cannot be used on full auto without wrecking themselves. Add in the person with full auto might as well carry less ammo. This is why making the replacement to the M240 that was lighter and full auto was pointless and the USA mil gave up on it. Weapon lighter did not increase amount of ammo solider could carry because the tested replacement to the M240 broke for the same reasons.

    When a lot of people have to be killed in a small area in a short time, full-auto is a valuable resource.
    This is not true in fact because if enough people are coming at you the full-auto gun foot soldiers carry are going to break before the other guns do. Lot of people in a small area you need killed quickly you will be after a vehicle mounted full auto 6 barrel so it can in fact do a long time frame without stuffing itself or a 40mm AA gun vehicle mounted(bigger and tolerate the heat) or soldiers trained to using burst weapons in combination were the weapons are not going to bugger up quickly. So a lot of people in a small area in a short time best weapon selections are not full-auto in foot soldiers hands due to defects.

    Of course your statement was true with WWII full automatic weapons with 6 barrels rotating so able to fire off 10000 rounds before barrel damage.

    The reality that the full-auto M240 and equal that they will be fired in burst mode to prevent them from buggering up barrel quickly the result is absolutely no advantage over 3 shot burst weapon.

    Robert Pogson why are the russian preferring 50 shot belts on the full autos over 250 shot belts. Yes the 50 shot belts are mentioned on the site you referenced to say hey Russia don’t have a problem. Same issue Russia can only use there weapons on full auto for a max of 50 shots before they start stuffing the barrel badly. 50 shot belt limit also reduces risk when solider gets hit. Now if you are in a location where you were needing the full 250 shot belt and the solider has cut it into 50 shot sections you are going to be kicking yourself due to the full automatic weapon defeats causing this behaviour to work around the weapon defeats. You said Russia does not see the problems I stated that is not true. Russia solider procedures like cutting up the 250 shot belts is to deal with the issues I listed. Its like all the procedures the UK mil made up to use the complete defective first generation SA80 guns.

    What has happened here is USA and Russia has had a pissing competition with full automatic weapons for soldiers over what one can fire the fastest and completely neglected durability. Result is full automatic weapons that provide no functional operation advantage over the burst weapons being deployed with soldiers in fact provide functional disadvantage. World war II full automatic was a force multiplier but those were way more durable weapons. Full automatic weapon without durability is not a usable as a full automatic weapon.

    The reason why a unit in Afghanistan in the video has a full automatic weapon is not a force multiplier because the reality is modern full automatic weapons soldiers carry cannot provide force multiplier advantage over burst weapon due to having to be used burst mode event that is full auto so the weapon does not fail in engagement. The reason is nothing more than basic intimidation so enemy sees a unit with a full automatic weapon does not understand that it has not given them any special advantage so enemy take less aggressive actions.

    The reality is everyone army using these modern solider carries full automatic weapons trained by an army is trained to use them in burst mode. Because the modern full automatic weapons cannot be used effectively any other way. Its stupid when you put a world war 2 full automatic gun next to a modern one and the world war 2 one can fire 10 to 50 thousand bullets without issue yet modern full automatics have trouble at 1 thousand.

    This is the problem anyone who had done maintenance on the MH240 and the like knows this. When you are using those weapons with even with blanks for movie usage the barrels bugger up. Replacing barrels is quite expensive.

  4. dougman says:

    full automatic vehicles…burst chain weapon…go back to playing Call of Doodie. Next you’ll be telling us that your EM field effects drones, as you once tried to insinuate that it did with wireless.

    http://mrpogson.com/2016/11/06/oops-mysql-falls-down/#comment-357815

  5. oiaohm wrote, “full automatic vehicles mounted is not a foot solider weapon they are carrying.”

    Who do you think rides around in those things? Foot-soldiers.

    oiaohm wrote, “full automatic weapons will have no place on the future battle field.”

    When a lot of people have to be killed in a small area in a short time, full-auto is a valuable resource. It can be deployed much faster than artillery/bombers. If you want to count waste, artillery and airplanes are far and away the biggest problems. When it comes to waste, no one much cares when the rounds are as small as 5.56mm. During WWII, it was a huge burden for soldiers to even carry 300 rounds. Now 1000 rounds is very possible.

    The Russians don’t see the problems oiaohm raises.

    USA doesn’t see those problems either. They have both light and heavy machine-guns for their guys to carry around.

    Here’s a recent video of use of automatic fire in Afghanistan. It’s definitely a force-multiplier when the opposition is under cover and a rifleman can’t identify a target.

  6. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson full automatic vehicles mounted is not a foot solider weapon they are carrying.

    Items like CROWS don’t have the issue of shooting team mates. If you hand jams shut on a CROWS it will stop firing. So just like a burst chain weapon the CROWS don’t suffer from killed or hurt solider dumping rounds stupidly all over the place.

    Full autos on vehicles were used at the start of the IRAQ war. Full autos in foot soldiers hands was not used that much in the IRAQ war. Something to remember vehicle mounted solider is not dealing with the recoil so the full auto weapon can in fact dependably hit it targets. Same kind of weapon in a foot soldiers own hands equals wasted ammo.

    Robert Pogson the reality the weapons used in war today have changed a lot since world war II. Foot solider needing full auto weapons as a personal carry weapon is over its only matter of time before this is standard in all armies.

    Even items like CROWS are being classed as limited future. There is lot of debate of changing CROWS class weapons to AI targeting weapons to reduce down on ammo consume. Of course this requires the UN rules for target selection to be debated a lot more.

    Reality all full automatic weapons are resource wasteful. So even items like full auto vehicle mounted machine guns have a limited future.

    Robert Pogson vehicle mounted full automatic weapons will be the last to of the full automatic weapons to be come deprecated tech but the writing is on the wall that all full automatic weapons will have no place on the future battle field.

    Between AI targeting weapons and burst weapons all roles for full automatic weapons will be replaced by weapons that are far less wasteful on ammo.

    Here’s a recent video showing lots of automatic fire in Afghanistan. It’s definitely a force-multiplier when opponents are in cover so the usual rifle can’t find a target.

  7. oiaohm wrote, “Why the full automatic weapons were getting used less because of less practise usage due to forces in the field.”

    Full auto were heavily used in the first days of the war in Iraq. It was mostly USA v Sadaam’s army. After all that was mopped up the opposition was mostly small groups or individuals in hit and run tactics and in particular, IEDs. No longer were there as many situations where large groups were involved. Machine-guns were still prominent on Humvees and guarding posts however as car/truck bombs and assaults still occurred on concentrated targets.

    It’s not that machine-guns were deprecated. It’s that the nature of the combat changed. Machine-guns are often incorporated in light armoured vehicles for obvious reasons, a high-value point target that must be protected.

  8. oiaohm says:

    Please could you kindly explain these two theories of yours? For someone that never shot a gun, nor can even own a gun for a multitude of reasons, knows so much. Should be able to explain his position and reasoning.
    dougman do you have to shot a gun to be part of military. The answer is no you don’t have to. Medical staff, Civilian intelligence offices and particular sections of navy don’t need to shot a gun. Do they need to still be able to identify weapons and know how they are effective. The answer is yes.

    Never shot a gun is not true. I have used truck/vehicle mounted weapons. Those I don’t have to deal with the recoil. I cannot use a gun that is not in a mount. Its nice shooting a 40mm AA gun. Servicing weapons and doing maintenance on firearms never means you have to hold them yourself. Gun rests with remote triggers exist for important reasons. Servicing firearms does mean you have to know them inside and out.

    Weapons that have to be used in field do have to be serviced. Firing pins and other parts in full auto-matic do have to be replaced. Reality the particular class of weapons could not have been used at particular times because the companies that should have had increased profits due to increased sales on the maintenance parts never did.

    “In Iraq a deployed foot soldiers from all countries none were sent into field with full automatic.”
    So this is simple. Check the companies making the service parts for the fully automatic weapons no increase in sales in fact decrease in sales with the Iraq war. Why the full automatic weapons were getting used less because of less practise usage due to forces in the field.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burst_mode_%28weapon%29

    Burst mode starts Vietnam War because soldiers with full auto were getting dead because they were running themselves out of ammo and ending with with a gun that was no more effective than a stick.

    Cover fire full auto has remained for quite some time with the common issue of Cadaveric spasm sometimes called “instantaneous rigor” and shrapnel/sniper damage to lower arm both resulting in hand locked closed on trigger. So a full auto weapon is totally not safe for building clearing. Of course a solider getting hit and wasting his complete clip of ammo not aimed at a target could be the difference between life or death for his complete team at times.

    So Vietnam War sees the first generation of burst fire-weapons superseding full automatic. We are on to the next generation of burst fire-weapons superseding the remaining full automatic. Because the remaining full automatic armies have a glaring design flaw for safety and ammo wastage prevention. Chain fire burst weapons where every time you pull the trigger you reset the remaining to fire count fire as fast as full auto difference being they don’t have the issues of a full auto weapon where a injured or kill person holding a full automatic can cause major harm yet a burst weapon at worst 3 shot persons extra.

    The reality is a bugger at times. Those anti banning guns don’t want to look at the fact that particular classes of guns being full-automatic should be banned because the base design is unsafe and there is newer safer design weapon makers can be using that fire at the same rate require slightly different training to use.

    Chain burst automatic vs a full automatic for providing cover fire provides the same cover fire. There is more than one way to skin a cat so you don’t have to choose the ways to skin a cat that could get you killed. Chain burst firearms reduce friendly fire events compared to full auto.

  9. ram wrote, ““…blistering heat…” In Canada? Global warming must be racing along faster than I realized!”

    In summer, when we can have 16h of sunshine and strong southerly winds bringing in hot air from Texas, heat and humidity can be oppressive here. Oh, it’s not like the southern USA but when we are conditioned to cooler weather it matters. In some years our soil becomes cracked and dry and grass/seedlings can only survive with artificial watering. Grass goes dormant and seedlings die.

  10. ram says:

    “…blistering heat…” In Canada? Global warming must be racing along faster than I realized!

  11. dougman says:

    Ham Dong, the reality is you are idiot who does not have a clue. This is widely known on this and many other blogs.

    “Full automatic weapons like it or not are mostly obsolete designs weapons to give to foot soldiers. Kept alive only because they are cheap.”

    “In Iraq a deployed foot soldiers from all countries none were sent into field with full automatic.”

    Please could you kindly explain these two theories of yours? For someone that never shot a gun, nor can even own a gun for a multitude of reasons, knows so much. Should be able to explain his position and reasoning.

  12. oiaohm says:

    Robert Pogson the reality is the Diemaco LSW in most armies to still have them other than Canada have been modified to semi-auto/full auto hybrid.

    They even have one model that fires only full-auto.
    This is mostly legacy. Also do note how the Diemaco LSW had no “bayonet lug” until recently. Recently was when it got semi-auto. Before Diemaco LSW had semi-automatic and was pure full auto the weapon was not for close quarters combat like building clearing.
    clear a room/hallway pretty quickly
    This prior comment of yours Robert does not apply to the full-automatic Diemaco LSW as it not a close combat weapon. The burst weapons and semi-automatic shotguns have completely taken over this role of room/hallway clearing.

    having a few such weapons in the group.
    The reality is at one point in history the complete group of soldiers would have had full automatic weapons that were switch-able to semi-automatic with 1 or 2 with weapons pure automatic. Today 1 or 2 soldiers in a group may have full automatic most of those with switch to semi-automatic will the everyone else in the group with burst/semi-automatic.

    Now countries without full automatic have chain burst weapons. That is the burst weapon that you can keep on firing by repeat pulling trigger.

    In some armies that are further along in the weapon change over no solider has full automatic other than vehicle mounted and the like.

    The reality is full-automatic weapons on soldiers hands are more that they have the weapon and cost of replacement being delayed.

    In Iraq a deployed foot soldiers from all countries none were sent into field with full automatic. Full automatic burns up ammo too fast. A gun without ammo is a stick and having full automatic weapons in the field massively increase the risk of running out of ammo.

    Reality is what armies have still in their armouries and what they are using are telling two different stories.

    There is a medical problem with a full automatic weapon. When a person is shot they may be holding the trigger depressed. Cadaveric spasm sometimes called “instantaneous rigor” in other words. The guy holding the full automatic weapon takes hit while firing will remain firing until out of clip even possibly in direction of own forces.

    So a full-automatic weapon is a liability a chain burst weapon is a reduced liability due to requiring an action every 3 shots. So instantaneous riger in a chain buster weapon will see a max of 3 shots after solders death or injury. Chain burst is a more complex trigger set-up than standard stop firing on release 3 shot burst.

    What reason do armies like Canada still have full automatic weapons is mostly cost saving. The reality from solider safety full automatic weapons on foot soldiers hands should be banned so forcing investment in weapons to change over to the safer chain burst weapon designs.

    Banning full automatic on civilians and forcing weapons makes to do chain burst weapons would bring cost of chain burst weapons down.

    Full automatic weapons like it or not are mostly obsolete designs weapons to give to foot soldiers. Kept alive only because they are cheap.

  13. Ivan says:

    I’m glad I live in Canada, a relatively peaceful and harmonious country where people are kind to each other

    Sure, Bob. Ya’ll just singin’ Kumbaya, ain’tcha? Maybe eatin’ smores and drinkin’ beer.

  14. dougman says:

    Speaking of front porches. Last year I shot a Coyote off mine, and hung his carcass up on a stake. This is what happens when one comes around begging look for a free meal.

  15. dougman wrote, “Tell me when you can conceal carry a 1911 in downtown Toronto, or buy a purchase a machine-gun Robert.”

    I believe various guards can carry. I don’t think any civilian can buy a machine-gun unless it is seriously deactivated. Of course, civilians can by semi-auto shotguns which in close quarters are as or more effective in an emergency. Those are extremely rare in Canada. I’ve certainly never had the need to hold a firearm in self-defence except once up North… Never needed to point one.

  16. dougman says:

    “Nope. We forced the government to drop the damned registry for long firearms. Rather they have a tight grip on firearms owners with a burdensome and ineffective licensing regime.”

    Tell me when you can conceal carry a 1911 in downtown Toronto, or buy a purchase a machine-gun Robert.

    Now that Trump is in office, they are expecting to push for national reciprocity.

  17. dougman wrote, “Canada and Australia have a tight-grip control on civilian firearms.”

    Nope. We forced the government to drop the damned registry for long firearms. Rather they have a tight grip on firearms owners with a burdensome and ineffective licensing regime.

  18. oiaohm wrote, “Machine-guns and submachine-guns have been dropped out most armies default soldier weapon world wide since the introduction on the 3 round burst weapons in Vietnam War.”

    You are moving the goalposts. I never wrote that every soldier should have full auto. You were not writing about that. You were writing about every soldier having access to full auto, e.g. having a few such weapons in the group.

    See Canadian infantry weapons

    They even have one model that fires only full-auto.

  19. dougman says:

    “dougman really why you are a spammer who just spams garbage when loses a point”

    Hey, I like spam. Since when are we keeping score with points?

  20. oiaohm says:

    dougman really why you are a spammer who just spams garbage when loses a point so what is the point caring if you can read anything. Besides you are avoiding answering question or picking up correct faults over
    http://mrpogson.com/2016/12/12/dhcp-trashed-by-toos-really/#comment-365391
    So you are a idiot who is worthless from what you response have been so far.

  21. dougman says:

    You wanna try typing that again so I can actually comprehend the message you’re trying to get across?

  22. oiaohm says:

    dougman no really we know more because the gun lobbies have come to Australia to make points and over again only to have it found out there are many faults. Interest enough Australia so called tight gun control has not reduced the number of firearms in Australia yet has altered the criminal usage of firearms.

    The common anti arguement in the USA is firearm control will take way the right to have guns. Australia proves that is absolutely not true.

    Nonsense. Machine-guns and submachine-guns have been a big part of military usage since ~WWI. They give even a small squad a chance to hold a position against superior numbers or to pin down an enemy force long enough for other intervention or one or two soldiers to clear a room/hallway pretty quickly.

    Machine-guns and submachine-guns have been dropped out most armies default soldier weapon world wide since the introduction on the 3 round burst weapons in Vietnam War.

    World war I and World war II there were not 3 round burst weapons.

    https://www.quora.com/In-what-situation-would-a-modern-soldier-fire-an-assault-rifle-on-full-auto-Burst-Semi-automatic
    No one really can provide a usage case for full auto compared to all variations of Burst.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burst_mode_%28weapon%29

    In fact the USA mil does not issue full automatic weapons to all foot soldiers any more Burst weapons is default.

    The reality with 3 round burst in the design that allowed repeatability pulling the trigger can hold the weapon firing as fast as full auto. Different is a user can not have frozen under fear sending the remain clip off in a unplanned direction with burst as they can with full auto.

    The reality is a USA citizen can buy a full automatic weapons that the USA military has declared to dangerous and ammo wasteful to be given to USA soldiers.

    Vietnam War is when the technology for 3 round burst appear and full automatic mode was shown to be completely wasteful and ineffective technology to be in a foot soldiers hands in most cases.

    Yes Robert you are right full automatic had its place in WW1 and WW2 but this was because the better technology did not exist then. 3 round burst also has seen a reduction in civilian shootings in combat for armies using those classes of weapons compared to when they were using full automatic weapons for all soldiers.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squad_automatic_weapon

    Squad automatic weapons are not for room clearing. They do not 100 percent like a normal rifle. They have a tripod set-up. So they can be put on the ground and use reducing recoil issue with full automatic mode so when being used in full automatic mode they don’t end up shooting wildly all over the place so are somewhere near on target.

    Squad automatic weapons are using to be station-ally placed for covering fire in full automatic mode and switched back to semi-automatic mode when on the move. The reality is a full automatic weapon without a tripod for stationary placement has no place in a modern day army. Yet for some reason USA civilians can buy firearm weapons with full auto that are not designed for tripod. Lot of the crime with full automatic weapons they are full automatic weapons without tripods so invalid weapon configurations for army usages so not covered by second amendment.

    There are 3 different burst weapon designs.

    1) you pull trigger have to hold trigger until the full burst number is fired. If you let up early the weapon will stop. This is the default soldier weapon in most modern armies with no full auto.
    2) you pull trigger weapon will completely burst fire the round and if you release pull trigger while the average 3 rounds is being first the weapon will continue firing as a full automatic as long as you keep on repeating cycle of releasing and pulling the trigger. This you find in some armies as speciality soldiers these armies don’t have full auto covering fire weapons carries by foot soldiers.
    3) you pull trigger weapon will completely fire burst then stop an wait for next trigger pull. This type was kind declared stupid by everyone.

    Type 2 burst weapon vs full automatic weapon from a covering fire point of view there is very little difference. From a solider point of view having to repeat pull trigger does keep mind on what they are doing. The second type of burst means they don’t just hold down the trigger and empty the clip. Also having to work finger means they should have some kind of clue how long they have been in the one set location. Staying still for too long on the battle field in one location is how to get on the wrong end of gun fire or mortar fire.

    So there is a big question if full automatic weapons do have a place any more for foot soldiers. Maybe 1 and 2 forms of burst with absolutely no automatic weapons in foot solider hands. Works out safer for the soldiers and the non combatants on the battle field.

    The reality is there are a lot of full automatic weapons that should just be banned due to no practical usage for hunting or armies due to being the wrong configuration. The full automatic weapons on sale that are the right configuration there is a big question if they should remain due to how little difference there is between a 3 mode burst repeatable fire weapon and full automatic.

    This is my problem I think it highly possible that full automatic weapons that foot soldier have used should be banned out right for being out dated technology that has been superseded by the burst technology weapons. Also the superseded full automatic weapon designs have no place being sold to civilians. Yes full automatic pistols are not issued to soldiers any more yet as USA civilian can go into a gun shop and buy one.

    Second amendment was not about being about bearing arms that made no sense for armies to have. Reality arms makers are getting to keep factories going making out of date superseded weapon designs that no army world wide will buy and dump them on civilians who know no better. Reality if the USA population has to rise up against the army if they are set-up superseded weapons of course the outcome is not going to be as per what the second amendment attended.

  23. dougman says:

    Both Robert and Fifi talk with authority on a subject, namely firearms, that they both know little about. Canada and Australia have a tight-grip control on civilian firearms.

    DERP.

  24. dougman echoed, “Section (12)(a) tells concealed carry license holders that “A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into: Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages”,

    So, firearms owners/carriers are going to tell CNN they could hear people screaming for help and being murdered in the building but did nothing because of a rule inappropriate to the situation? Would any jury convict in that situation? It is a widely accepted principle in law that self defence or defence of others is a legitimate reason to use lethal force, even in Canada, let alone FL, USA. No. Concealed carry didn’t work because few, if any, were in the right place at the right time with the right motivation. It may well work in other situations but it’s almost as dangerous as terrorism in a normal situation, hence the rule. That doesn’t hold when innocents are being slaughtered en masse. The perp was allowed to do his deeds because even the police could not close on him quickly and he held hostages by then. Concealed carry was useless in that situation.

  25. oiaohm wrote, “There is no place for a full automatic weapon in the hands of a military foot solider these days. The closest military foot solider gets to a automatic weapon is 3 shot burst.”

    Nonsense. Machine-guns and submachine-guns have been a big part of military usage since ~WWI. They give even a small squad a chance to hold a position against superior numbers or to pin down an enemy force long enough for other intervention or one or two soldiers to clear a room/hallway pretty quickly. They certainly are excellent weapons in ambush too. Canadian soldiers are used to a “squad automatic weapon” which resembles the ordinary rifle but it is full auto and has a huge box magazine holding hundreds of 5.56NATO rounds. A routine use is to pin down an enemy while one or two groups leapfrog towards the enemy or flank him. The .30 calibre light machine-gun serves much the same role over larger areas and longer ranges. Every army likely has some heavy machine-guns which mostly serve as rapid-firing artillery against troops and light armoured vehicles. Any modern army not equipped with such tools would be eaten alive by an army so equipped. With artillery and close air-support, the only way infantry can do the job is quickly and move on to escape annihilation. Such weapons greatly increase the speed with which infantry can overrun an objective or clear an area. Almost all rifles these days in military use are semi or full-auto for much the same reasons. There are times when full auto is the right choice. e.g. against superior numbers or at close quarters as a force multiplier.

  26. dougman says:

    Fifi, go back to playing Call of Doodie, your words are meaningless.

    Did you ever file that deformation lawsuit yet?

  27. oiaohm says:

    https://theconversation.com/australias-gun-numbers-climb-men-who-own-several-buy-more-than-ever-before-58142
    “More Guns = More Crime”
    Australian numbers also say that logic is false.

    dougman there are more firearms in Australia now than before the firearm ban. There has been a crime reduction. Harder punishments for those using guns in crimes and restriction on Automatic weapons.

    Surprise most illegal weapons in a country are not imported into a country. Most are legally acquired weapons that have got some how stolen from legal weapon owners.

    There is a issue with automatic and semi-automatic weapons in criminal hands giving the criminal fools courage. The said part is if you get the full break down on the Australian 50 percent reduction is gun deaths the biggest area of reduction is in fact criminals. Why criminals with Automatic weapons had high olds of being killed by single shot weapons. What happens is fools courage criminal with automatic weapon shows off the gun to get fear just happens on of the people near by and one of the near by people has a gun/knife/human fist skill/some other 1 hit kill weapon and they get first strike killing the criminal.

    So if not gun laws better firearm/self defence education would go a long way. Lot of USA gun owners when surveyed don’t have a clue how to perform self defence without a gun.

    Something to remember most mass shootings depend on fools courage.

    There is no place for a full automatic weapon in the hands of a military foot solider these days. The closest military foot solider gets to a automatic weapon is 3 shot burst. USA constitution is the right to bar arms for a militia so allowed weapons only be those suitable for a foot solider. Full automatic weapons other than AA guns and and other fixed position weapons really don’t pass the USA second amendment. The USA second amendment says “A well regulated Militia” being a well regulated Militia does mean regulation weapon ownership to weapons effective for foot solders. So the USA full automatic weapons problem is the USA people not following their own constitution.

    Australia restricted semi-automatic and full-automatic at the same time. It would be very interesting to have a country just restricted full-automatic and see the effect. Stanlee show for search for real super hero put a full-automatic in a person who was fully trained to use full automatic weapons vs a person fully trained to use a semi-automatic the semi automatic was faster and used less rounds to shot the assigned targets.

    The only thing a full automatic weapon in a foot solders hands is good for is mass murder even then is still second rate to a semi-automatic weapon. This is a problem in the USA there is a huge number of full automatic weapons around that have no practical use. Don’t reduce guns swap every full automatic weapon hand held weapon for a semi-automatic weapon with 3 round burst and the USA would be safer and better able to defend itself if it ever got invaded or required to perform self defence.

    Full automatic weapons give fools courage because untrained idiots think they lay down effective suppression fire. Issue is full automatic weapons don’t A person firing a few shots at a time spread over the area will suppress movement just as much as a person dumping a mountain of lead out a full automatic weapon and running out of ammo. Fully automatic weapon is basically bling that kills unattended targets when it used. Also why mounted fully automatic weapons are alright and hand held are not is due to the recall of a hand held automatic weapon people have the habit of shooting over the heads of the intended target with a hand held automatic due to recoil.

    Basically the mechanics of a full automatic hand held gun does not work. Yet for some reason USA will not ban them. If full automatic hand held weapons were practical for combat then they would be protected by the USA second amendment since they are not they are not protected by second amendment they are only protected by a USA governments not willing to pass the laws. Not passing the laws causes crimes by fools courage.

  28. dougman says:

    “Further, Orlando was not a gun-free zone. FL is a carry state.”

    You’re an idiot.

    Per Florida’s concealed carry law, those with a license to carry may not carry their firearms into an establishment that serves alcohol. The state statute that covers the license to carry a weapon, Title XLVI Chapter 790, clearly states that guns are not permitted in bars.

    Section (12)(a) tells concealed carry license holders that “A license issued under this section does not authorize any person to openly carry a handgun or carry a concealed weapon or firearm into: Any portion of an establishment licensed to dispense alcoholic beverages for consumption on the premises, which portion of the establishment is primarily devoted to such purpose.”

  29. dougman wrote, “We are discussing attacks at gun-free zones with GUNS, and now you are off on some tangent about a loon and a bomb. Who’s moving goal posts now?”

    Daesh does not play by your rules.

    Further, Orlando was not a gun-free zone. FL is a carry state.

    Wikipedia: “Florida is a “shall issue” state, and issues concealed carry licenses to both residents and non-residents. Florida recognizes licenses from any other state which recognizes Florida’s license, provided the non-resident individual is a resident of the other state and is at least 21 years old or may be under 21 if the applicant is a member or veteran of the United States Armed Forces.”

    Legally, the establishment was gun-free but no one was frisking customers and by dougman’s logic, all those carriers would have rushed in before the police arrived…

  30. dougman says:

    “Bomber. Do you think he cared police were present?”

    Link please! We are discussing attacks at gun-free zones with GUNS, and now you are off on some tangent about a loon and a bomb. Who’s moving goal posts now?

  31. dougman wrote, “What shooting incident are you referring, that had gun-deaths and a radicalized Muslim?”

    Bomber. Do you think he cared police were present?

  32. dougman says:

    “e.g. Times Square”

    What shooting incident are you referring, that had gun-deaths and a radicalized Muslim?

    “That many of these are gun-free is a coincidence, not a determining factor whether or not there will be an attack.”

    LOL. You cite no evidence to your claim. Here are some publications calling you on your BS.

    A professor from Purdue researched mass shootings from the 1950s on and discovered that only two of them occurred where guns are legal to be carried. This really blows apart liberal arguments that more guns means more mass shootings. Between 2004 and 2012, gun ownership increased by 61%. But since 2008, violent crimes decreased by 12.9%. Eric Dietz, Ph.D., the former director of Homeland Security for the state of Indiana and a 22-year Army veteran, and now a professor at Purdue University, set out to find out how armed citizens could prevent deaths.

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272747940_Mitigating_Active_Shooter_Impact_Analysis_for_Policy_Options_Based_on_AgentComputer_Based_Modeling

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301891599_Active_Shooter_Mitigation_for_Gun-Free_Zones

  33. dougman wrote, “why are all the Muslim attacks in GUN-FREE zones?”

    They aren’t. e.g. Times Square They look for high-valued targets like soldiers/police/important place/VIP or numerous targets like crowds at a performance/game. That many of these are gun-free is a coincidence, not a determining factor whether or not there will be an attack. Look at Syria and Iraq. Daesh is taking on armies in built-up areas and inflicting serious casualties.

  34. dougman says:

    “It’s not ordinary crime where the perpetrators fear being killed. Daeshis want to die.”

    So tell me, why are all the Muslim attacks in GUN-FREE zones?

  35. dougman wrote, “this very topic”.

    No, it’s not the same topic. I read Lott back in the ’90s. He was writing about crime: robbery/murder, that sort of thing. Daesh is about murder-suicide. It’s not ordinary crime where the perpetrators fear being killed. Daeshis want to die. They prefer to take innocents with them so they are not deterred by police/armed citizens. They just take them on as collateral damage or sometimes the main target.

  36. dougman says:

    “I guess you think it’s OK to shout “FIRE!” in a movie theatre any old time, or smoking in a powder magazine or throwing a few neutrons into a critical mass of fissionable material… What are the rules of engagement? How do you tell the good guys from the bad guys? Shoot everyone and let God sort ’em out? I wonder what the density of carriers in a crowd is enough to start an uncivil war.”

    Shouting fire in a theater, is a crime in itself. Few neutrons you say? Maybe perhaps you are missing a few neurons!

    You are starting to sound like all the other anti-gun folk from the 90s, before they rebranded themselves as gun safety folk. They major premise, mirror’s yours which is “More Guns = More Crime” which is patently false.

    I suggest you read, the paper and book written by John Lott on this very topic.

    http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1853&context=vulr

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

  37. dougman wrote, “At least with everyone armed, the attack can be snuffed out faster than the Secret Service acting alone.”

    I guess you think it’s OK to shout “FIRE!” in a movie theatre any old time, or smoking in a powder magazine or throwing a few neutrons into a critical mass of fissionable material… What are the rules of engagement? How do you tell the good guys from the bad guys? Shoot everyone and let God sort ’em out? I wonder what the density of carriers in a crowd is enough to start an uncivil war.

    I think it is reasonable to assume a small percentage of carriers in public is sufficient to deter criminals but Daesh is a death-cult. They want to die, so there is no deterrence, just a force-multiplier they can invoke at very small expense.
    The Plan:

    • Find a crowd of “carriers”.
    • Move to a central location.
    • Open fire in random directions.
    • Die with a smile on your face as carriers shoot each other and innocent bystanders…
    • dougman says:

      “SS is great at taking out a lone attacker but if Daesh shows up with 6 or 8 legally entitled to carry…”

      LOL…Daesh can do that sans a national reciprocity agreement. already. Now you are just being silly and making up theoretical actions.

      Nothing is stopping Daesh from enacting such a plot in the past, present or possibly the future. At least with everyone armed, the attack can be snuffed out faster than the Secret Service acting alone.

    • dougman wrote, “what does that have to do with outnumbering the Secret Service?”

      SS is great at taking out a lone attacker but if Daesh shows up with 6 or 8 legally entitled to carry…

    • dougman says:

      “I doubt Trump would sign that into law. His SS detail would be outnumbered and under powered.”

      You do realize that the majority of States already have existing conceal carry, what does that have to do with outnumbering the Secret Service?

    • dougman wrote, “When national concealed carry is passed in America, are you going to continue that line?”

      I doubt Trump would sign that into law. His SS detail would be outnumbered and under powered.

    • dougman says:

      “More guns would just increase the rate of fire”

      When national concealed carry is passed in America, are you going to continue that line?

    • dougman wrote, ” The gun laws in Chicago only restrict the law-abiding citizens and they’ve essentially made the citizens prey for criminals.”

      Nonsense. More guns in Chicago would just increase the rate of fire and would very likely not save anyone from drive-by or wrong place/time killings. The gangs are not duelling but using ambushes. They are not going to wait around for good citizens to fetch a firearm and even if everyone carried, dead men don’t shoot well.

    • dougman says:

      “I’m glad I live in Canada, a relatively peaceful and harmonious country where people are kind to each other more often than not and firearms are used for hunting and target-shooting not making a point.”

      I am glad you live in Canada too. Your socialist view on life is not welcome here. To be honest, you live out in the middle of nowhere, however Winnipeg is Canada’s most violent city. So do not think you are free and clear, when the wolves have nothing to eat, they will clean the clocks of the suburbia.

      http://www.winnipegsun.com/2016/07/20/winnipeg-is-canadas-most-violent-city

      Chicago’s problem can be placed directly at Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s feet, in that, Chicago has the strictest gun control in the nation and is a sanctuary city for immigrants. The gun laws in Chicago only restrict the law-abiding citizens and they’ve essentially made the citizens prey for criminals.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *