Today's mass shooting in the US

[Colonel_Klinck]

The purpose is to have a militia should the government overstep and being tyranical.

Yeah they are going to do great taking on the full force of the governments agencies and armed forces with their AR15s. I'll give a hint on how it goes, it won't be like what's happened in Ukraine. It would be more like Poland in 1939.

 

[dowie]

It does have a purpose, it's used for hunting and self defence, people also enjoy owning and firing AR-15's recreationally which is a valid purpose. If you want to ban guns then stop being cowards and state that as your intended goal and make arguments to that effect instead of banning guns because they look scary.

Also, stopping a dozen angry democrats from invading your home, apparently:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1544750108251652096

 

[Longbow]

I think the cowards are the ones using a military grade weapon against wild pigs. I know they can be big and scary though.

If people enjoy shooting them let them (auto/semi-auto) do it within the confines of appropriately managed clubs.

Just for the record I’m not against guns, I had a .410 shotgun at about 11/12 and shot regularly. I’m actually in the process of applying for a license again at the moment but I can differentiate between what’s appropriate and whats not.

Why are they cowards? Are you a vegetarian? They aren't using "military grade weapons" either, they are using civilian, semi-auto rifles.

You know they also cull boar in this country too with rifles for the same reason, they breed like mad and cause devastation to the local environment. Bringing them to a "appropriately managed club" defeats the purpose, they are considered pests and their population is kept in control for that reason.

 

[Scougar]

Yeah they are going to do great taking on the full force of the governments agencies and armed forces with their AR15s. I'll give a hint on how it goes, it won't be like what's happened in Ukraine. It would be more like Poland in 1939.

With respect, you don't quite understand how many people are armed here. Also, it would be pretty interesting to see the whole forces fight in a civil war.

 

[Angilion]

Facing a large body of bodkin equipped archers in any armour was bad news.

I'm not aware of any known example of anyone being injured by an arrow penetrating plate armour. Bodkin arrows were very effective against other forms of armour, but not plate. The relatively long, thin head of a bodkin arrow is a disadvantage against plate - the arrowhead bends. Gambeson, definitely. Mail, almost certainly. Plate, definitely not any main plate. Possibly the thinnest plate. I have seen accounts of French knights expressing concern about the possibility of arrows penetrating their helmets at the sides of their faces or through the holes in the visor that made breathing possible (but no evidence that either ever happened). But I'm not an expert. Maybe it happened.

The best test I've seen of period-correct arrows against period-correct plate armour (early 15th century in both cases) was organised by Tod Cutler and a small team of relevant specialists (armorer, bowyer, fletcher and archer). 160lb draw weight warbow with a 30 inch draw length at 25 metres range (very short range for that bow) against a realistically mounted breastplate, with a variety of arrows. Only a "platecutter" type arrowhead made from hardened steel (possible at the time, though no evidence exists of them) had any significant effect and even that wouldn't have caused any injury. It didn't penetrate the plate, let alone the mail and arming garment underneath. You'd certainly have felt it, though.

There is a common belief that archers often aimed for the face (when they weren't shooting for area effect), and a fair amount of evidence to suggest this was the case. Closed face helmets weren't particularly common, from memory, due to the disadvantage of vision loss.

Edit: Hugh Soar is a good author if you want to explore this. Robert Hardy's Longbow is (was? Been a while!) seen as definitive, but is hard going.

Oh aye, open face was a weak spot. Hell of a shot to hit at a distance with a medieval warbow and arrows, but definitely something to worry a lot about if you're facing thousands of archers each capable of loosing 6 arrows per minute at a sustained rate and with a well organised resupply chain on the battlefield.

Visored helmets became common, probably mostly as a result of that. An attempt to get a better balance between the advantages of open face and closed face helmets and generally a successful one but there are known examples of people being injured or killed by an arrow because they had their visor up when they thought they were out of range of archers but weren't. As well as the massive reduction in vision, there's also a significant reduction in hearing and the ability to breathe properly. So visor up until it needs to be down, especially if you're in a positon of command and thus really need to know what's going on. And are thus a prime target.

 

[dod]

Why are they cowards? Are you a vegetarian? They aren't using "military grade weapons" either, they are using civilian, semi-auto rifles.

You know they also cull boar in this country too with rifles for the same reason, they breed like mad and cause devastation to the local environment. Bringing them to a "appropriately managed club" defeats the purpose, they are considered pests and their population is kept in control for that reason.

As far as I'm aware the AR15 style rifle is a direct derivative of the military version with the full automatic function removed. You can play with words all you like.

Why are they cowards? Maybe not quite the right word but I've spent my whole life round gamekeepers. I can assure you that none of them require a semi auto rifle to cull pests.

I'm far from being a vegetarian and even if I was, what difference would that make? Introducing a non-related argument, presumably intended as a slur, doesn't make your point any stronger.

You've misread what I said about clubs. I'm meaning use the rifles in clubs, not bring the boar to the club.

 

[VincentHanna]

So anyway, it seems the "background checks" didn't work at all in this particular case, despite Illinois seemingly having tougher "Red flag" gun laws than many other states.

Highland Park shooting suspect considered second attack

The 21-year-old suspect was able to purchase five guns despite several 'red flags' being raised.

www.bbc.co.uk

Questions are being raised over how the suspect was able to buy guns.

He passed background checks meant to prevent potentially dangerous individuals from buying weapons, even though he had previously made threats that were reported to authorities.

Three other firearms were also found at his home. Police said the suspect had two prior contacts with law enforcement but was still able to purchase five guns in the past year.


In April 2019, police were called to the suspect's home one week after he reportedly attempted to take his own life. And in September 2019, police were called by a family member who said he had made violent threats to "kill everyone".

Police responded and seized 16 knives, a dagger and a sword from his home. He was not arrested and no further action was taken.

In a separate and more recent incident, Mr Crimo reportedly behaved suspiciously during an April visit to a local synagogue during Passover. A volunteer security co-ordinator told The Forward, a Jewish news organisation, that he believed the suspect was "sizing up" the facility, although he left without incident.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Also, stopping a dozen angry democrats from invading your home, apparently:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1544750108251652096

Oh the irony that those "Democrats" are all now Republicans.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

With respect, you don't quite understand how many people are armed here. Also, it would be pretty interesting to see the whole forces fight in a civil war.

I don't care how many are armed. You are talking about semi auto rifles and pistols against full military might. If you believe the military will side with you then you don't even need guns because they'll take down the tyrannical government. The fallacy that some citizens armed with such weapons can take down a modern military is laughable but if it makes you feel better and more secure then please live in your delusion. Its not some African nation where the military only has AK47s or Central American nation from the 80s (and they likely had the US or Soviets pulling the strings anyway)

 

[Roar87]

I don't care how many are armed. You are talking about semi auto rifles and pistols against full military might. If you believe the military will side with you then you don't even need guns because they'll take down the tyrannical government. The fallacy that some citizens armed with such weapons can take down a modern military is laughable but if it makes you feel better and more secure then please live in your delusion. Its not some African nation where the military only has AK47s or Central American nation from the 80s (and they likely had the US or Soviets pulling the strings anyway)

Yeah the US military has historically done really well against locals armed with rifles fighting asymmetrically. This forum really needs a clown emote.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Yeah the US military has historically done really well against locals armed with rifles fighting asymmetrically. This forum really needs a clown emote.

He is talking about overthrowing a tyrannical government with pistols and AR15s. How would that work out? How has that worked out in other countries with a powerful military? You're post is the one requiring a clown emote of you think you could overthrow a tyrannical government in the US with AR15s remembering that if it was indeed a tyrannical government then the military would have been co-opted or would have already stepped in and so the restraint the US military has shown in Iraq/Afghanistan would have long gone out the window. I mean who exactly are they going to be fighting with their AR15s if not the military? The delusion is astounding it really is.

 

[Roar87]

He is talking about overthrowing a tyrannical government with pistols and AR15s. How would that work out? How has that worked out in other countries with a powerful military? You're post is the one requiring a clown emote of you think you could overthrow a tyrannical government in the US with AR15s remembering that if it was indeed a tyrannical government then the military would have been co-opted or would have already stepped in and so the restraint the US military has shown in Iraq/Afghanistan would have long gone out the window. I mean who exactly are they going to be fighting with their AR15s if not the military? The delusion is astounding it really is.

I think an armed populace makes a difficult environment for a tyrannical government to even exist, you rather typically think because the status quo is what it is, that it will be like that indefinitely - clearly unaware of current affairs. It only takes a look at how the world changed in 2020 to realise that circumstances can change rapidly due to global events and it would be foolish to think that a tyrannical government could never exist. I could paint a scenario where Russia and America get into a strategic nuclear exchange and the majority of the US military is wiped out in their bases for example.

 

[cheesyboy]

Yeah they are going to do great taking on the full force of the governments agencies and armed forces with their AR15s. I'll give a hint on how it goes, it won't be like what's happened in Ukraine. It would be more like Poland in 1939.

Vietnam and Afghanistan stood up to the US and ultimately won.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

I think an armed populace makes a difficult environment for a tyrannical government to even exist, you rather typically think because the status quo is what it is, that it will be like that indefinitely - clearly unaware of current affairs. It only takes a look at how the world changed in 2020 to realise that circumstances can change rapidly due to global events and it would be foolish to think that a tyrannical government could never exist. I could paint a scenario where Russia and America get into a strategic nuclear exchange and the majority of the US military is wiped out in their bases for example.

So some situation that has 0.0001% chance of actually happening then. You should have added zombie apocalypse to your post.

You sound like the delusional fools in the US tbh, got to get those damned commies and Marxists

 

[ianh]

Yeah they are going to do great taking on the full force of the governments agencies and armed forces with their AR15s.

Yet less than 500 unarmed people violently protesting is an attempted "coup" which threatened to change the Government?

Which of those statements is true because they both can't be?

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Vietnam and Afghanistan stood up to the US and ultimately won.

Not with AK47s they didn't. The Vietnamese had Soviet backing and weaponry plus the South government was corrupt and useless.

Afghanistan was only lost in the end as pacifying a invaded nation takes huge amounts of troops and money. The US didn't have the stomach for it. In the initial war they whooped the Taliban's arse.

 

[Colonel_Klinck]

Yet less than 500 unarmed people violently protesting is an attempted "coup" which threatened to change the Government?

Which of those statements is true because they both can't be?

Oh so the government was tyrannical was it? They were unarmed, Trump wanted his armed supporters let past the MAGS after all. They were attempting to overthrow an election with the losing candidate so subverting the democratic process. If anything they and Trump would have been the tyrannical ones in this situation and they most certainly did not have the military on their side.

 

[C Kent]

Oh so the government was tyrannical was it? They weren't unarmed, Trump wanted his armed supporters let past the MAGS after all. They were attempting to overthrow an election with the losing candidate so subverting the democratic process. If anything they and Trump would have been the tyrannical ones in this situation.

I agree, the numerous videos posted to social media showing the people armed with flags presented a real threat. I'm sure glad the unarmed woman was shot and killed, those words she was shrieking could have really hurt that poor officer.

 

[Roar87]

Oh so the government was tyrannical was it? They weren't unarmed, Trump wanted his armed supporters let past the MAGS after all. They were attempting to overthrow an election with the losing candidate so subverting the democratic process. If anything they and Trump would have been the tyrannical ones in this situation and they most certainly did not have the military on their side.

Do you think "the military" is so single minded? This is the problem, a complete lack of critical thinking. In some world where a populace was rebelling against a government then you'd have some elements of the military likely on the side of the rebels, it wouldn't be the military vs civilians. Yes I do think this scenario is incredibly unlikely, it's essentially the last part of the checks and balances put in place by the US Constitution.

 

[ianh]

So, again, your statement is.............

Yeah they are going to do great taking on the full force of the governments agencies and armed forces with their AR15s.

Which shows having an AR-15 isn't going to be enough to overthrow the US Government (a statement I agree with). However it's direct opposition to your other statement regarding the violent Jan 6th protestors who didn't have a single AR-15 amongst them............

They were attempting to overthrow an election with the losing candidate so subverting the democratic process.

So, again, which of your two statements is correct, because it can't be both?