[Taltarzac725]

Armed partygoer shoots, kills man who confronted group with rifle, police say

It has made some news stations.

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

According to the links provided in the post that I responded the answer is no. I'm pretty sure being a racist is not considered a mental illness. Neither is hatred.


This story isn't making the news although it should.

Charleston, West Virginia, 5/25/22

On Wednesday evening a family was having a birthday-graduation party with 40 people in attendance. Dennis Butler drove through the neighborhood and was confronted and warned about speeding down the street because children were present. He left the area and returned later with an AR style rifle and began shooting at the party goers. A woman attending the party and was armed, as a lawful conceal carry holder. She immediately engaged the shooter, striking him several times and he died at the scene. Nobody at the part was struck. This woman stopped a mass shooting (by definition) from happening, but the news networks will not carry the story.

Dennis Butler was a convicted felon and therefore prohibited from having firearms.

[Stu from NYC]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

According to the links provided in the post that I responded the answer is no. I'm pretty sure being a racist is not considered a mental illness. Neither is hatred.


This story isn't making the news although it should.

Charleston, West Virginia, 5/25/22

On Wednesday evening a family was having a birthday-graduation party with 40 people in attendance. Dennis Butler drove through the neighborhood and was confronted and warned about speeding down the street because children were present. He left the area and returned later with an AR style rifle and began shooting at the party goers. A woman attending the party and was armed, as a lawful conceal carry holder. She immediately engaged the shooter, striking him several times and he died at the scene. Nobody at the part was struck. This woman stopped a mass shooting (by definition) from happening, but the news networks will not carry the story.

Dennis Butler was a convicted felon and therefore prohibited from having firearms.

The woman is a hero and should be applauded. Unfortunately her actions did not fit the narrative that news wants to present so they ignored it. Sad.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by Scbang

OK then, why are we not allowed M50 machine gun? It's just another method of killing.

Sad

I don't know what a M50 machine gun is. There is the original M2, 50 caliber machine gun and you can legally own one. You will have to find a Class III gun dealer, fill out an application to purchase a machine gun, pay a $200 fee and if approved you can buy one from the dealer, if you can find one for sale. The big hurdle to owing a machine gun is the purchase price, usually in the multiple thousands of dollars and ammo is around $5.00 + a round.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by Scbang

Good luck defending yourself against F-35 with laser guided missiles..

SAD

Did you ever hear about a group of rebels called the Viet Cong? They were formerly known as the Viet Minh who fought against Japanese and French occupation. Guess who won? The name changed to the Viet Cong and they fought the U.S. for over a decade. They were bombed by F4 Phantoms, B52 bombers, sprayed with Agent Orange, attacked by Huey helicopters, Cobra gunships and shot at by artillery howitzers and 16 inch battleship guns. The Viet Cong had no tanks, artillery, fighters planes, or helicopters, guess who won?

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

The we are not like Australia, Sweden, and etc.........that part sounds like some kind of "American Exceptionalism" rant to me. All those countries mentioned have stronger middle classes than the US does today. We have the largest wealth disparity of all the 1st world countries. I guess that is some sort of "American Exceptionalism".
........And the US economic realities lead to social dysfunction and even to such extremes of Mass Murder - because there is little money set aside for mental health and other social programs as in other countries. Texas recently lowered their budget for mental health. Is Texas actively trying to produce MORE mass murderers?

Crime should have been rampant during the Great Depression but from what I've read about that period of economic catastrophe, there wasn't a drastic rise in crime.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

I don't think it is hypocrisy. The NRA as well as the attendees are not against guns being at the convention. I've been to NRA conventions myself and had not problem carrying my handgun. It is the Secret Service who is dictating that no guns be present. That is the case at every single event that a person attends who they are charged to protect. Where any former President speaks, it will have to be gun free. As we can see from the recent headline where some Iraqi's were conspiring to kill George W. Bush. They don't have to be a sitting President to be at risk and the Secret Service will reduce as much risk as possible.

If I were the NRA, and the Secret Service said I wasn't allowed to have open carry at ALL of my convention, including a speaking engagement where they were present to protect only ONE singular person exclusively - I would tell that singular person he is not welcome in my convention.

Carrying a firearm is supposedly for self-protection, and to protect those around you. Either you're for it, or you're not. If you're for it, you wouldn't allow a handful of people to order you to put your firearms away so that they can protect ONE person only.

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Shooting deer and shooting watermelons or punching holes in paper are all OK gun activities with me. And protecting your home and castle. I draw the line at mass murder of human beings with GUNS designed mainly to kill human beings. Those guns are low recoil, 22 caliber, high velocity, high magazine capacity, and military-style rifles.
.......Government tyranny can best be prevented by votes, not bullets. And if that need ever EVEN happened, it could be stopped just as well with bolt action and single-shot rifles.
.........Australia and New Zealand will NOT FALL to government tyranny just because they don't want semi-automatics in the hands of civilians.

The long bow was a devastating weapon used by the English army. Armies of those times had huge wooden hammers called War Hammers that crushed skulls and shattered bones. The Mace, a large iron ball with spikes that was attached to a chain and swung by the soldier penetrating medieval armor crushing skulls and shattered bones. All kinds of knives and swords have been used as a weapon of war.

Nearly every firearm that has been made was a weapon of war so claiming the AR 15 is a weapon of war doesn't make it any different that say an M1 Carbine. In case you don't know, the M1 Carbine was a semi automatic rifle and the M2 Carbine was full automatic. The M1 and M2 carbines originally came with 15 round magazines and later in the war, 30 round magazines Carbines were sold in the millions as surplus after the war and how in many "mass shootings" have you ever heard about them being used?

You totally ignore the fact that kings and dictators over the centuries have banned the ownership of weapons by their subjects. They didn't want anybody challenging their power. If you don't think our government would never turn into a dictatorship you are totally naive when it comes to human nature and the desire for power.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

According to the links provided in the post that I responded the answer is no. I'm pretty sure being a racist is not considered a mental illness. Neither is hatred.


This story isn't making the news although it should.

Charleston, West Virginia, 5/25/22

On Wednesday evening a family was having a birthday-graduation party with 40 people in attendance. Dennis Butler drove through the neighborhood and was confronted and warned about speeding down the street because children were present. He left the area and returned later with an AR style rifle and began shooting at the party goers. A woman attending the party and was armed, as a lawful conceal carry holder. She immediately engaged the shooter, striking him several times and he died at the scene. Nobody at the part was struck. This woman stopped a mass shooting (by definition) from happening, but the news networks will not carry the story.

Dennis Butler was a convicted felon and therefore prohibited from having firearms.

The bolded statement is untrue. Once again - a simple google search is all it took to find out you were wrong.

ABC News, WaPo, the AP, CBS News, heck it's gotten out to the UK with the BBS and the Saudi Gazette. It's not only news, it's international news.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC

The woman is a hero and should be applauded. Unfortunately her actions did not fit the narrative that news wants to present so they ignored it. Sad.

Unfortunately you chose to believe a stranger on an internet forum rather than check the claim for yourself. If you had, you would've discovered it DID get covered - by the Networks, the National press, and even the International press.

ABC presented it 2 days ago. Fox didn't get to it til yesterday, right along with the Saudi Gazette.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Did you ever hear about a group of rebels called the Viet Cong? They were formerly known as the Viet Minh who fought against Japanese and French occupation. Guess who won? The name changed to the Viet Cong and they fought the U.S. for over a decade. They were bombed by F4 Phantoms, B52 bombers, sprayed with Agent Orange, attacked by Huey helicopters, Cobra gunships and shot at by artillery howitzers and 16 inch battleship guns. The Viet Cong had no tanks, artillery, fighters planes, or helicopters, guess who won?

They had a huge jungle and were very adept at guerrilla warfare. Guerrilla warfare - Wikipedia

History of guerrilla warfare - Wikipedia

[Number 10 GI]

To further follow up on the abusive power of government, in England there are Hate Speech laws that can get you prison time. Here is an excerpt from WikiPedia explaining the law:

Hate speech laws in England and Wales are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3][4] Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[5] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[6]

The Police and CPS have formulated a definition of hate crimes and hate incidents, with hate speech forming a subset of these. Something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on: disability, race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation. A hate incident becomes a hate crime if it crosses the boundary of criminality.[7]

Interpretation of the law is pretty wide open to whomever is in power. What if we had this law on the books, which would violate the 1st Amendment, and a sitting president decided that any speech criticizing his/her policies was Hate Speech? There are many people in this country who believe we should have such a law. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why the 2nd Amendment was written into the Constitution.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

To further follow up on the abusive power of government, in England there are Hate Speech laws that can get you prison time. Here is an excerpt from WikiPedia explaining the law:

Hate speech laws in England and Wales are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3][4] Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[5] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[6]

The Police and CPS have formulated a definition of hate crimes and hate incidents, with hate speech forming a subset of these. Something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on: disability, race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation. A hate incident becomes a hate crime if it crosses the boundary of criminality.[7]

Interpretation of the law is pretty wide open to whomever is in power. What if we had this law on the books, which would violate the 1st Amendment, and a sitting president decided that any speech criticizing his/her policies was Hate Speech? There are many people in this country who believe we should have such a law. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why the 2nd Amendment was written into the Constitution.

This might be of interest.

Hate Speech and Hate Crime | Advocacy, Legislation & Issues

[Number 10 GI]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

They had a huge jungle and were very adept at guerrilla warfare. Guerrilla warfare - Wikipedia

History of guerrilla warfare - Wikipedia

We have urban jungles where criminals hide out and avoid arrest by the authorities so why couldn't guerrillas hide out there also? How do the middle eastern guerrilla fighters avoid being wiped out by the government's military? They live in a wide open desert!

Do you really believe that the Viet Cong were born with the ability to be guerrillas? They were trained, just like the Irish Republican Army, the Viet Cong, and all the Muslim terrorists.

[Number 10 GI]

Here is an interesting bit of firearm history a friend sent me:

"A hundred and twelve years ago, in 1907...our great grandparents were first able to the semi-auto Winchester Model 1907.
This is a gun they could buy from a Sears catalogue and have delivered via US Post. It was/ is a semi-automatic, high powered centerfire rifle, with detachable, high capacity magazine.
About 400,000 semi-automatic rifles were produced before WW2. Civilians had hundreds of thousands of these for 40 years, while US soldiers were still being issued old fashioned bolt action rifles.
The 1907 fired just as fast as an AR15 or AK47 and the bullet (.351 Winchester) was actually larger than those fired by the more modern looking weapons..
The ONLY functional difference between the 1907 and a controversial and much feared AR15 is the modern black plastic stock.

The semi auto, so-called "assault rifle" is 110 years old. It isnt new in any way.
The semi auto rifle was not a weapon of war. The government MADE IT a weapon of war 40 years after civilians had them.
The semi-auto can be safely owned by civilians. The proof is that literally 3 generations of adults owned and used them responsibly and no one ever even noticed.
Want to fix the horror of mass shootings? Fix the things that have changed in society for the worse in the last 50 years."

As I pointed out earlier, after WWII millions of semi automatic M1 Carbines were sold to the American public with 15 and 30 round magazines. You could buy them from catalogs and gun magazine ads and have them shipped directly to your home by the US Postal Service. Using all the illogic in this thread there should have been hundreds of shootings using the Model 1907 and M1 Carbine. What changed? Society and moral values have changed and not for the good. So easy to blame an inanimate object than to work on correcting the real problem. Gun bans, mental pablum for simple minds.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI

Here is an interesting bit of firearm history a friend sent me:

"A hundred and twelve years ago, in 1907...our great grandparents were first able to the semi-auto Winchester Model 1907.
This is a gun they could buy from a Sears catalogue and have delivered via US Post. It was/ is a semi-automatic, high powered centerfire rifle, with detachable, high capacity magazine.
About 400,000 semi-automatic rifles were produced before WW2. Civilians had hundreds of thousands of these for 40 years, while US soldiers were still being issued old fashioned bolt action rifles.
The 1907 fired just as fast as an AR15 or AK47 and the bullet (.351 Winchester) was actually larger than those fired by the more modern looking weapons..
The ONLY functional difference between the 1907 and a controversial and much feared AR15 is the modern black plastic stock.

The semi auto, so-called "assault rifle" is 110 years old. It isnt new in any way.
The semi auto rifle was not a weapon of war. The government MADE IT a weapon of war 40 years after civilians had them.
The semi-auto can be safely owned by civilians. The proof is that literally 3 generations of adults owned and used them responsibly and no one ever even noticed.
Want to fix the horror of mass shootings? Fix the things that have changed in society for the worse in the last 50 years."

As I pointed out earlier, after WWII millions of semi automatic M1 Carbines were sold to the American public with 15 and 30 round magazines. You could buy them from catalogs and gun magazine ads and have them shipped directly to your home by the US Postal Service. Using all the illogic in this thread there should have been hundreds of shootings using the Model 1907 and M1 Carbine. What changed? Society and moral values have changed and not for the good. So easy to blame an inanimate object than to work on correcting the real problem. Gun bans, mental pablum for simple minds.

Untrue, although this took more than just a few seconds to check. This story is the #1 story on the entire first page of a google search. Digging just one layer deeper, I found that the AR-15 has a thing called a direct gas impingement used in the cycling and piston and bolt and some other mechanics that I don't even try to understand and don't care about.

What's interesting about it isn't what it is. It's that it was patented in the 1956. It didn't exist for the 50 years of the Winchester 1907's manufacture, until 4 years before the Winchester 1907 was retired. And - it was introduced by Colt, not Winchester.

So no, they're not exactly the same. They don't look the same, they didn't come with the same components, didn't fire the same ammo, didn't have the same weight, didn't have the same thrust, didn't have the same method of (whatever it is that bolts and pistons do).

The only thing they had in common is that they're both semi-automatic rifles.