Multiple people shot at grocery store in upstate New York, police say one suspect tak

[Taichiliberal]

Correct. Shooting for the center of mass is the commonly trained target area since, if the shooter misses a little left, right, up or down, they will still hit something. This is why the Hollywood fable telling of "shoot the gun out of their hand" is stupid. Anyone who has fired a pistol at 25 yards quickly learns why.

My guess is that Officer Salter was less than 15 yards from the WSE, quickly fired off three accurate shots before being murdered. My advice is two shots to center of mass then automatically aim for the groin area (larger than the head/shoulders area) and fire two rounds there. This tactic can be practiced at the range. Obviously if body armor is suspected, go for the groin area first. Once the WSE is down, it's easier to go for the head/shoulders. Best to keep shooting until they stop moving.

If nothing else, hitting meat will distract the WSE from murdering others and, even if they run away, cause them to bleed out. Civilians aren't required to abide by the Geneva Convention, so hollow points, soft points, jacketed hollow points, etc are legal to use and highly recommended. The bad news about such ammo is that it's great for wounding/killing, but not for penetrating windshields, light body armor, walls, etc.

And this would've, could've, should've, can be, scenarios is just that. Each real life event when analyzed has different twists to it ... just look at all the mass shootings in the last 30 years.

The "good guy with a gun" mindset is not the answer....what happened in Buffalo proves that. If the Homeland Security jockeys spent more time on these race war advocating websites (regardless of race, creed or color) instead of how many folk support Code Pink ... if the politicians that mouth variations of "white replacement" and such bilge are called out for what they are, things might bet better.

[Doc Dutch]

And this would've, could've, should've, can be, scenarios is just that. Each real life event when analyzed has different twists to it ... just look at all the mass shootings in the last 30 years.

The "good guy with a gun" mindset is not the answer....what happened in Buffalo proves that. If the Homeland Security jockeys spent more time on these race war advocating websites (regardless of race, creed or color) instead of how many folk support Code Pink ... if the politicians that mouth variations of "white replacement" and such bilge are called out for what they are, things might bet better.

Banning isn't the answer. No more than banning drugs or banning abortion is the answer. Depriving people of freedoms isn't the path we should be traveling.

[Taichiliberal]

riginally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
No I did not...you're obviously trying to pick a fight where there is none.

There have been about 128 mass shootings in America since 1982. Here's the breakdown https://www.motherjones.com/politics...nes-full-data/

There has been advocacy for gun control regarding "gang violence" forever ... the most notable faces were Community activists, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson. But it took Brady getting caught in crossfire to get any real Capitol Hill action going. Do the research if you don't believe me. Sad, isn't it?

Like it or not, the proof is in the pudding. Since the sunset of the 1994 AWB, you've had weapons that were on that list purchased and used in multiple mass shootings. Yes, other weapons could and can and have been used in murders and such...but you can't deny the reality.

Banning guns instead of focusing on the mental health aspects is the standard Democratic answer.

Repeating yourself and ignoring the historical counter to your previous whole statements doesn't make you right. This was already addressed.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
And this would've, could've, should've, can be, scenarios is just that. Each real life event when analyzed has different twists to it ... just look at all the mass shootings in the last 30 years.

The "good guy with a gun" mindset is not the answer....what happened in Buffalo proves that. If the Homeland Security jockeys spent more time on these race war advocating websites (regardless of race, creed or color) instead of how many folk support Code Pink ... if the politicians that mouth variations of "white replacement" and such bilge are called out for what they are, things might bet better.

Banning isn't the answer. No more than banning drugs or banning abortion is the answer. Depriving people of freedoms isn't the path we should be traveling.

You need to get off this faux panic BS that the old NRA and gun manufacturers has been shoveling for years. The Bushmaster, the AR-15....weapons on the old 1994 AWB list that the GOP voted against reinstating in 2004. Even when that list was in effect, you had a PLETHORA of handguns, rifles, semi-automatics available to the general public...any purchases prior to the ban could be kept. So spare me this "depriving of freedoms" bullshit. You can't have a military issue weapon, you can't mount a WW2 .50 caliber on your garage. But you sure as hell kill someone dead with a .38 revolver or hunt efficiently with a bolt-action hunting rifle. A matter of fact, a matter of reality. This "I want it so I should have it" attitude is childish...with the possible deadly results.

Your comparison to illegal drug use is absurd. Apples and oranges.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Gun control is NOT just about banning guns.

For years I've stated that if guns were treated like cars in this country, you would have a great reduction in gun related murders. Gunners, the NRA and the manufacturers are seriously against universal background checks, registration and data bases. Go figure.

Thanks for admitting it includes banning guns.

The Democrats don't give a shit about Robin Williams, Kate Spade and Anthony Bourdain because they didn't kill themselves with a gun.

C'mon Dutch, don't go silly on me. The chronology of the posts shows that I stated previously that gun control was not solely about banning guns, as you insisted. I logically and factually proved otherwise.

Your last sentence is pure smoke screen.....a personal accusation based solely on your opinion. You do this dodge instead of just conceding a point, which in this case AGREES with you in part. Your hang up about guns is just that, a hang up that to date has not be proven out despite decades of rhetoric from NRA/gun manufacturing flunkies.

[Doc Dutch]

Repeating yourself and ignoring the historical counter to your previous whole statements doesn't make you right. This was already addressed.

Fine. Deadlock and no compromise as usual. My vote cancels out yours resulting in maintaining the status quo.

[Althea]

Brandishing is against the law. Do you really want to set someone up who bought a rifle and is busted carrying it to their car?

I use my SKS and AK-47 for hunting. You can be sure the magazines are 2/3s full on the AK. LOL

Transporting a weapon isn't a problem. Is brandishing against the law in all states? Why do I see militia members parading around with them all the time?

I'm not a hunter. I'm a fisheman. But I do see a lot of commentary by hunters, about those who would need high capacity magazines for hunting.

[Doc Dutch]

Transporting a weapon isn't a problem. Is brandishing against the law in all states? Why do I see militia members parading around with them all the time?

I'm not a hunter. I'm a fisheman. But I do see a lot of commentary by hunters, about those who would need high capacity magazines for hunting.

You want to charge the "militia members" for transporting or carrying a firearm but not the grandpa leaving Walmart with a rifle? I'm not a lawyer but that seems difficult to put into writing.

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/res...s/brandishing/
Brandishing is defined by Merriam-Webster as to shake or wave (something such as a weapon) menacingly or exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner. In most states, “brandishing” is not a legally defined term. In fact, only five states (Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Virginia and West Virginia) currently have laws on the books that directly reference brandishing. When it comes to concealed carry, many states have their own definitions and may refer to brandishing as “Defensive Display,” “Improper Exhibition of a Weapon” or “Unlawful Display.” Actions from resting your hand on the grip of your pistol or knife or sweeping your cover garment aside to expose your concealed carry weapon may be considered brandishing.

It is important to understand that the lack of a formal legal definition of brandishing does not mean that brandishing a firearm, whether accidentally or with the intention of intimidating, will not result in criminal charges. Brandishing a firearm may fall under other state laws, such as aggravated assault, assault with a deadly weapon, improper use of a firearm, menacing, intimidating or disorderly conduct. Criminal legal consequences may vary from misdemeanor citations to felony charges based on the state or jurisdiction that you are in and the specifics of your particular incident. Depending on your state, additional penalties may incur if your brandishing incident occurs in the presence of a law enforcement officer, public official or emergency medical responder.

[Althea]

You want to charge the "militia members" for transporting or carrying a firearm but not the grandpa leaving Walmart with a rifle? I'm not a lawyer but that seems difficult to put into writing.

Once again, you're twisting yourself into knots. I'm going to bet that grandpa didn't load his weapon on the way out of Walmart.

[Matt Dillon]

Brandishing is against the law. Do you really want to set someone up who bought a rifle and is busted carrying it to their car?

I use my SKS and AK-47 for hunting. You can be sure the magazines are 2/3s full on the AK. LOL

That's not legal in Texas, bitch.

I take that back! It IS.

It's not legal in FL.

[Doc Dutch]

Once again, you're twisting yourself into knots. I'm going to bet that grandpa didn't load his weapon on the way out of Walmart.

Now you are changing the scenario. First you want to ban anyone displaying a gun in public and now you saying banning loaded weapons in public.

How can you tell if a firearm is loaded or not just by looking at it from 30 feet?

[Althea]

Now you are changing the scenario. First you want to ban anyone displaying a gun in public and now you saying banning loaded weapons in public.

How can you tell if a firearm is loaded or not just by looking at it from 30 feet?

LOL. Save your master trolling powers for the morons here. I have most of them on ignore, but you claim to enjoy wasting keystrokes on them.

[Doc Dutch]

LOL. Save your master trolling powers for the morons here. I have most of them on ignore, but you claim to enjoy wasting keystrokes on them.

Dude, just because you don't like my reply and can't answer the question doesn't make it trolling. You are free to ignore all of my posts if you truly believe I'm trolling you.

[Althea]

Dude, just because you don't like my reply and can't answer the question doesn't make it trolling. You are free to ignore all of my posts if you truly believe I'm trolling you.

In this case, you know that you are. You alter the discussion, accuse me of doing same, and then pretend to be stupid.

Again...I see you do it to the assholes here. Go play with them if you're bored.

[Taichiliberal]

Fine. Deadlock and no compromise as usual. My vote cancels out yours resulting in maintaining the status quo.

Now you're just being a silly child with this insipid stubbornness. Post #219,223, 266, 273, 275 puts the kibosh on this move of yours. As I always say, the chronology of the posts will always prove out the truth.

If you've got nothing else but a new version of the SOS in this vein, I'm done and will move on with your last word.