Eddo36

Thanks, it's currently being used in a few police departments. It has Picatinny rail right beneath the barrel that I plan to add a tactical light/laser combo to it.

Gun control increases crime. In 1976, Washington DC set up one of the most restrictive gun-control measures in the country. Now DC's murder rate incrased 134% while the nation's murder rate dropped 2%. Source: FBI Uniform Crime statistics, 1997. Maryland claims to have the toughest gun control laws in the country. What they don't openly say is that that state ranks #1 in robberies and #4 in both violent crime murder. Source: Index of Crime by State. FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 2000 Fact: Guns stop crime Law-abiding citizens use firearms to stop crimes 2.5 million times every year, or 6,850 times a day. Source: More Guns Less Crimes, John R. Lott. University of Chicago Press, 199 In 1979 the Carter Justice Dept. found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually commited. But when a female or male victim was armed with a gun or knifek, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful. Source: US Dept Of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administratin, Rape Victimization in 26 American cities, 1979. In 1985 US Dept of Justice study concluded that- 60% of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun." 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at hojme is that they fear being shot during the crime." 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police." Source: The Armed Criminal in America: A survey of Incarcerated Felons, US Dept of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Reserach Report, July 1985. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year. Only 2% of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11%, over five times as high. Myth: Thirteen children are killed each day by guns. Fact: statistics actually includes children as old as 19 to 24. Most violent crime is perpetrated by mailes ages 16-24. So the numbers include adult gang members and other criminals who die during the commission of crimes. Then criminals and suicides are removed, the actual number of "chirldren" (under 14) that are killed daily reduces to 1.3 While every death is a tragedy, the benefit of 2.5 million crimes stopped by citizens each year far outweights the drawbacks. Children and guns- Pulblic deaths involveing firearms account for 2% of all injuries to children age 0-14 yeras. Falls account for 3%, suffocatin by ingesting an object is 4%, drowning is 17%, and automobiles is 51%. With drownings eight times more likely to kill a child, why don't we see a group called "Women against Water"? Perhaps the greater good of water outweighs the risks? Concealed-Carry laws reduce crimes- As of 2004, 36 states have right-to-carry laws. In each of those states, the crime rate fell after the right-to-carry law became active. After Florida passed their concealed carry law, the State's homicide rate fell from 36% abovethe natinal average to 4% BELOW the national average, and remains below the national average to this day. The serious crime rate in Texas fell 50% faster than the national average after a concelaed carry law passed in1005. Conversely, crime is significantly higher in states without right-to-carry laws. I can go on by my finger hurts from pulling the trigger so much at the range yesterday.

Smith & Wesson's M&P the 9mm version Ain't it a beauty? Only costed $600 with night sights included. For target shooting at range and house defense purposes only. Conceal carry is illegal in LA county.

And why or why not?

https://secure.responseenterprises.com/mmfence/?a=43 After joining the NRA, I don't feel like I got much cash to spend on this. Think it'll be successful?

And if it is for the greater good, would it still be called murder? And if it is called murder, then would the word "murder" really be such a bad thing?

It's all relative. They are the majority. What is relative to you may not be relative for others.

It depends? So this quote isn't always true then?

And those 100 people hates those other 100,000 people, do those 100 people have the right to defend themselves? All I'm asking for is if they have the moral right to try to defend themselves, whether it is a lost cause or not.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/01/24/ray.gun.ap/index.html

That's not an easy pistol to shoot. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What makes it not easy? Recoil does not affect your aim, since it goes into effect only after the round is fired.

How did that happen? Wrong round?

I don't even know what the heck A-Line or special weapons week mean. Then again I went to SD. http://www.mcrdsd.usmc.mil/RTR/RTR_Matrix.htm

Actually you're too old school, pistol shooting isn't taught in boot camp. Nor MCT.

Okay, can that air winger or someone tell him why pistol shooting isn't taught to everyone in the USMC?

When have I ever stated that I've been in the Marines? And if I did, when have I ever stated that I was an MP?

This is the handgun I'm thinking of getting it before it gets banned soon one of these days. It's .50 cal and can probably go through body armor, walls, and stop cars cold when aimed at the engine. It's currently going for $1186.00 http://www.smith-wesson.com/webapp/wcs/sto...=-1&isFirearm=Y Though I already spent half that much on handgun classes.

Took introductory pistol course earlier today, and am going to a more tactical course tomorrow, and I love it. Never shot a pistol before now. It's fun to have the 2nd Amendment. :D

That's the uglist thing I've ever saw.

That's the reason I suggested an American Foreign Legion. Manpower without conscription. There would be no shortage of qualified able-bodied fighters wanting to get into the US. Maybe even half the Chinese army. And what better organization to discipline them than the USMC.

I know you're just using China as an example but as someone familiar with the politics there I can state with confidence that this strategy won't work. The vast majority of the Chinese people do not feel repressed by the government and certainly won't rally to any "PsyOps" propaganda, sponsored by the US or otherwise. At best, the US would be able to utilize Taiwan and Tibet - but given that they represent maybe 1% of the Chinese population, there would never be any mass revolts. Thus, if a land invasion was to be planned, it'd have to be planned against the backdrop of million-men armies, guerilla and standing. I can't imagine, post-Iraq, any self-respecting military strategist depending on the contingency of people rising against their own government as the means by which to win a war. Saddam Hussein was about as bad as they come, after all - he's certainly no Hu Jintao, who commands significant popularity (moreso than Bush in the US, certainly). <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was thinking gun runs like what the US military did in Baghdad- armed convoys going through the streets into the city blasting and then they go out. But on a much, much larger scale. As in the convoys doing the gun running would be entire armored divisions, supported by airpower they would be unstoppable. Several armor divisions cut through China in multiple lines just like slicing a pie, dividing and isolating the enemy controled area to where they are flanked all around, and take the surrounded territory one at a time. It won't work without close air support, of course, but air support is had. There will be no front line, rather the battle lines are the cuts the convoy makes in China like cuts through pie, as heavily guarded logistics lines (also guarded with airpower) that can be moved as needed.

All right, that is a fair criticisim. I've been out of the service for ten years now and have not made any real effort to keep up. There is little more I can say on the subject except I think you are wrong so I'll let David Hackworth make my final point for me: THE MARINES HAVE LANDED -- AGAIN <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Umm is it me or does all that article says is that the Marines "rapidly deployed" to Aghanistan after the war ended, since the war with the Taliban was conducted and won by airstrikes and raids by special forces. The current insurgency in Afghanistan is being fought by grunts from the Marine Corps and Army, so it is no difference. You say that you think I am wrong, but I don't think you can back up that statement since this is the 21st century.

Yeah, your thinking is obsolete. America's military doctrine is spelled out in the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Here is the 2006 one, and I suggest you read up on it if you want to catch with the current time- http://www.comw.org/qdr/qdr2006.pdf Simply put, airpower means military dominance in the conventional sense (unconventional aspects such as insurgency as in Iraq right now is a different thing), but your mindset is on winning a war conventionally, as in versus another superpower such as China? In that case, the new F-22 Raptors is all that is needed. The Raptor will shoot down all enemy aircraft long before the enemy pilots can obtain visual and get into dogfighting range. Chinese ships won't be able to send troops/supplies to the USA because they will be shot down in the Pacific by USA's airpower. If China needs to be invaded, then a shock and awe campaign on military targets in its homeland starting with anti-air emplacements, like in Baghdad, just that there were too few military targets in Baghdad to hit and political and civil structures were stupidly targeted, messing up the host country's infrastructure and not to mention unneeded civilian casualties. Anyways... BOOM! There goes the Chinese tanks in flames as well as other military targets. Would be a pain in the ass getting troops over to China via ships due to Chinese submarines fast, IMO, unless anti-sub helicopters from destroyers and US submarines clear the area of Chinese subs which may take time. But who needs speed in a war with a big country? Overnight blitzkrieg won't work, China is simply too big. Better option is to attack from a neighboring country. China way too big for the run and gun tactic to work as what the US did in Baghdad neighborhood, so key is to win the hearts and minds, use PsyOps to do psychological operations since Chinese people are under a repressive government they can be incited to revolt once much of China's military is destroyed by USA airpower. Propaganda. USA has weak neighbors (Canada and Mexico) so any other enemy nation that plans on invading USA will need time to move it's force into the USA, and they will be shot down from the air long before. Now I am no Rumsfeld and I am not a hater of large ground toys and infantry, since they have their uses and there are needs to go in various ground engagements (holding ground, clearing out urban areas, etc etc etc, infantry will never be obsolete, sadly). Both Marines Corps and Army infantry/armor are the same when it comes to that job, they both can have units which specialize in rapid deployments, or they both can go in slow and supplied for the long haul, and thus without going through all those bull about how the Army doesn't have AmTracs or an Air Wing or Semper Fi... the Marine Corps is just another US Army, and USA don't need two armies. But planes are the key players in modern conventional warfare. But if you're worried about another superpower, airpower is your answer and not mass buildups of American troops as cannon fodder. Now counter-insurgency is something that needs to be focused on. http://www.cfr.org/publication/12257/ If you want to catch up on current times and start wondering why we don't fight with sticks and arrows anymore, you got some catching up to do.

Well if that's the way you say it is, then theoretically the Marine Air Wing won't see action if USAF gets first dibs (as they do), no?

What do you think the Air Force is for? Landing crafts... aside from that fact that storming beaches under fire is an obsolete tactic of modern warfare which has the potential of causing mass casualties when modern airpower can bombard strategic targets to require one or carpet bomb the whole place... just build a few landing crafts for the army and put US soldiers into one and viola.... the Army can do D-Day again. All gruntwork are the same and infantrymen are versatile, so why is a separate branch needed for that? And the planes are a job for the Air Force. Why would you join the Marines to be in the Air Wing? Except get into an accident prone Harrier that vertical liftoff capability hasn't seen tactical use in modern times (modern meaning 21st century warfare and not the cannon fodding attrition trench warfare and dumb bombs of the past). So an Army soldier is unqualified to do the exact same things as a Marine 0311?