Shootings - A thread 🔫

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,926
407
83
44
VA
And... some donkey shot up the government center down in VA Beach. Please don’t let it be an AR or AK that he used. Either way it’ll be used to try to take our guns away.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,926
407
83
44
VA
Yeah, latest I heard is that he was still employed as an engineer there, but disgruntled. And he apparently used a suppressed .45 pistol with extended mags. Sounds like the pistol was bought legally. Not sure about the suppressor, but if it was, he certainly passed an enhanced background check. He also apparently died in an extended shootout with responding police. One of them took a bullet to the vest/body armor, but was okay. I haven’t seen a picture of him yet, so I’m wondering if he’s ethnic, and they are busy doctoring it to make him look more white...

They did already identify all the victims, with names, work titles and pictures. That seems a little fast, considering it hasn’t been even 24 hours. Could they possibly have notified all next of kin already? Also, not sure what they were going for there, with their slide show. Something smells... odd.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,926
407
83
44
VA
Explains why no pics...

Edit: Yep, it appears he is, and possibly a Muslim convert (unconfirmed). I’d expect not to see much more about this one in the news except to try to remind us endlessly that all guns are bad...
 
Last edited:
Likes: G.I.*EDDIE

NSA

Brotherhood
Admin
Mar 13, 2011
25,389
371
83
Southern California
www.fighting118th.com
I would guess anything that isn't.. I dunno.. a "sexy" shooting (racially motivated, high # of dead, celebrity, etc) will get buried in the news. The news exists now just to hook viewers.. and they cater to whatever is hot/gets views. Lately that's just been all-trump all the time.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,926
407
83
44
VA
Presumably at close range, suppressed. So he's just vicious. Most of them probably stood there in shock, and let him walk right up on them. Without the deafening sound of the shots, they all probably stood there in full on disbelief and denial while he walked around and executed them. Being an employee there, he most definitely would know the best ways to trap them in place as well.
 

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,786
319
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
I didn't hear about this one until just now. They couldn't be more regulated if you tried and the tax stamps are prohibitively expensive.

"What is your view on silencers? Would you like to see those banned?" "Good Morning Britain's" Piers Morgan asked Trump.

"I don't like them. Well, I'd like to think about it. I mean nobody's talked about silencers very much. I did talk about the bump stock and we had it banned," Trump said. "We're looking at that. I’m going to seriously look at it."
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/trump-seriously-considering-banning-suppressors-after-virginia-beach-shooting
 

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,786
319
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
Presumably at close range, suppressed. So he's just vicious. Most of them probably stood there in shock, and let him walk right up on them. Without the deafening sound of the shots, they all probably stood there in full on disbelief and denial while he walked around and executed them. Being an employee there, he most definitely would know the best ways to trap them in place as well.
Yeah, my vision of vicious was him walking up to people hiding under their desks. That's seriously disturbing.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,926
407
83
44
VA
True, that's likely what they were taught to do in an active shooter situation: "Hide under your desk and throw your stapler at the guy if you can." So much safer than 2 or 3 concealed carriers drawing their guns and taking down the guy, huh? :rolleyes: Or even the potential of that in a non-gun-free zone offering a deterrent so the guy never even tries it...
 
Likes: G.I.*EDDIE

NSA

Brotherhood
Admin
Mar 13, 2011
25,389
371
83
Southern California
www.fighting118th.com
What is the reasoning or need for a silencer for the vast majority of people? Are they useful in hunting? I'd think it'd be good not to spook the game.. but it also lowers the velocity.. so.. ? I can't think of any reason for anyone to have one other than (A) to look cool or (B) do some shady shit.

Did we find out if he got his legally? If so, yeah he already jumped through a ton of hoops and still got through.
 

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,786
319
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
The only reason to own one is for backyard target shooting so you don't piss off your country neighbors. My bro has one and kept egging me on to buy one, but I'm not spending an AR worth of cash to look cool. My barrel shroud has the same cool effect for $30. I could care less if they are banned as I agree with the shady shit argument 100%, but it surprised me that Trump saying this wasn't plastered all over the place.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,926
407
83
44
VA
I have not heard if he got it legally or not. If he did, you can bet it will get a whole lot harder now.

Suppressors would allow shooters to shoot targets without the need for hearing protection and also would allow hunters to not have to injure (however mildly) their hearing while taking game. That second one was the reason put forward when the ASA (American Suppressor Association) pushed for a bill to take suppressors off the NFA list back when the GOP had both houses but could do nothing of any significant value.
 

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,786
319
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
Wouldn't subsonic rounds basically accomplish the same thing or is it illegal to use that for hunting?

I don't know, it's one of those chipping away at rights, but I've never been a fan of suppressors in the wild. It's right up there with full auto on things the public really does not need. Just leave our actual rifles, optics, handles and magazines alone.
 

G.I.*EDDIE

gobbles a LOT of cock
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
43,433
422
83
S.E. Mich :(
Wouldn't making them illegal be the same thing as making guns illegal? Good guys can't/won't get them who obey laws while bad guys who give zero sh!ts about laws still get them. Murder is illegal and that didn't stop the guy from murdering people.

I mean, when was the last time a suppressor murder spree happened? How many law abiding people have them? Do they need them? None of your business. Do they need machine guns? None of your business. Do they need _____? None. Of. Your. Business.

Less laws, not more.
 

NSA

Brotherhood
Admin
Mar 13, 2011
25,389
371
83
Southern California
www.fighting118th.com
But I mean, I don't know a real good argument for letting 'good guys' have them either.. other than the hearing thing Dan said. It's not like you need to "silently" defend your house or something.

Guns in general have a lot of uses that are not explicitly bad, silencers.. I dunno.
 

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,786
319
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
Wouldn't making them illegal be the same thing as making guns illegal?
Only if the companies and people who have suppressors dump them on the black market, but they will then cost even more and the hood rats still couldn't obtain them unless they broke into a home that had one laying around. I am not concerned with a criminal who has thousands of dollars to drop on gear because I and Joe Schmoe are never their target. Does your gun not shoot better without a a suppressor?
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,926
407
83
44
VA
Wouldn't subsonic rounds basically accomplish the same thing or is it illegal to use that for hunting?

I don't know, it's one of those chipping away at rights, but I've never been a fan of suppressors in the wild. It's right up there with full auto on things the public really does not need. Just leave our actual rifles, optics, handles and magazines alone.
You still have the sound of the explosion of the propellant, but it should definitely bring the sound down significantly. I wouldn't risk it for hunting though. I bought special really powerful rounds to hunt with. I don't want to risk maiming the animal and just leaving it suffering.

I like the idea of shooting without earpro, but I have no intention of ever going through the NFA process again, unless I end up with at deal I can't resist. However, if suppressors were off the shelf, I'd probably have a few.

I agree with you on the public not necessarily needing to have easy access to full auto weapons as well. I shed no tears when bumpstocks got banned, and I don't feel like any (new) rights were taken away by that. The scary thing is that this is just our opinions though, and who gets to decide what "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" really means?

At the time it was written, the farmer had access to the same rifles/muskets that the military had. Should that not be the same today (full auto)? Or should we only have rights to the exact weapons they had in 1789? To me, the answer lies exactly where today's sporting rifles are, semi-automatic, magazine fed. No full auto, no grenades/grenade launchers (etc.), and no flame throwers (despite their current legality).

Edit: To clarify why I think semi-auto, mag fed is the right place - it's the butter zone where tyrants remain afraid to try to over dominate a potentially relatively well armed populace, but idiots are not able to so easily hurt themselves or nearly as many others while spraying and praying something that's full auto.

Problem is, nobody completely agrees with me, and so are pushing for either more or less all the time. Another problem becomes when, every time somebody abuses the current laws, a-hole politicians (like VA's current blackface wearing governor) jump on it to try to take rights away from law abiding citizens.
 
Likes: G.I.*EDDIE

G.I.*EDDIE

gobbles a LOT of cock
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
43,433
422
83
S.E. Mich :(
I shed no tears when bumpstocks got banned, and I don't feel like any (new) rights were taken away by that.
I saw this yesterday in regards to the bumpstock thing. If some Joe Shmoe on the interwebs saw that angle, you some slimy politicians/lawyers did as well.

The only thing Donald "take the guns first, go through due process second" Trump is going to deliver on, in regards to firearms, is more gun control.

He already checkmated semi-autos when he instructed his DOJ to unilaterally reclassify bump stocks as 'machine guns' ex post facto. Now every semi-auto firearm falls within the "or can be readily restored to shoot" clause in the def. of 'machine gun' set by the '34 NFA. If they were inclined the ATF could write them out tomorrow.

"When they give us that inch, that bumpstock ban, we will take a mile" —Delaney Tarr, March For Our Lives.

Btw, Trump just appointed rabid anti-gunner Chuck Canterbury to head the ATF.
Ironic that Trump said what he did in regards to suppressors.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,926
407
83
44
VA
Yeah, I hate that kind of reactive BS. The bumpstock ban was that, but really, it should never have been a thing in the first place. While it technically did not turn a semi into a full-auto, in practice it did. It was poking the bear. I have always said that, and I knew all it would take was the slightest scrutiny to drive the ATF to revoke their approval of it. I expect that arm braces will be the same. That is poking the bear as well, as 99% of the people that use them do so to skirt the SBR laws, not because they are disabled (their purported purpose).

Look, I fully get that the libs will always do absolutely everything they can to push gun control until there is absolutely nothing left, but sometimes the overpushing to legalize everything or skirt the existing laws just gives them cause to label all gun owners as crazies that want to shoot up the world with no responsible limitations. As it is, as long as reasonable people (fewer and farther between each day) can compromise to allow the 2nd Amendment to be honored (as I mentioned above), I have no issue with removing the stupid stuff, while allowing for reasonable innovation. But when they want to send us back to muskets because some tool shoots up his old office, I'm going to push back.
 

G.I.*EDDIE

gobbles a LOT of cock
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
43,433
422
83
S.E. Mich :(
Reasonable people can do that. People/communists bent on world domination (I wish that was an exaggeration) are not reasonable. They see compromise was a weakness and a way to slowly destroy their enemy. Death by a thousand cuts.

Once it was fully automatics. Reasonable
Yesterday it was bumpstocks. Reasonable
Today it will be suppressors. Reasonable
Tomorrow it will be?

They won't stop until we have no defense. Freaking knives are banned in the UK.

We can keep being reasonable. They won't be. So, what isn't reasonable?
 

G.I.*EDDIE

gobbles a LOT of cock
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
43,433
422
83
S.E. Mich :(
Oh that would suck. If they were cheaper and easier to obtain I'd for sure get one for any weapon I have because cool. I loved that rectangle one for the Glock. It looked so sci-fi-y.
 

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,786
319
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
Oh, I’d have one too if I didn’t have to pay the ATF to crawl up my ass with a microscope, but I do not need it. I’m with you Dan at keeping it where we get full capacity semi-autos that shoot the same rounds as the troops. As far as having a full auto to match the troops with the right to bear arms, well I have some thoughts on that. Back then the farmers were the troops and the guberment could not afford to arm the troops, so all the Davey Crockett’s had a duty to be armed as best as possible. Obviously this is no longer the case. Also, how often are our current troops flipping that switch to full auto? I mean, they can only pack in so many mags and emptying them in a few seconds doesn’t sound like a way to survive long on the battlefield. Beyond suppressive fire, I bet they are trained to leave that switch alone.

Now here is a view bound to ruffle some feathers, but I don’t really give a shit because compromise works both ways. We as a country need to decide just how valuable human lives are and if we decide death is unacceptable beyond disease and accidents, then we need to ban guns, abortion and death penalty. If we decide liberty is more important than life, then all 3 need to be legal. No ifs ands or buts (except the abortion thing when the mother’s life is at serious risk). I’m so fucking tired of this contradictory argument from both sides when it is so black and white simple. Death or no death. They should all be tied together. Period.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,926
407
83
44
VA
I’m with you at reasonable, Eddie. I also realize the opposition is often not. But we can’t waste our efforts defending the stuff that skirts the legal (i.e. bump stocks) and so called arm braces. We should be focused on keeping things at the reasonable place they are (at least on a national level), a defensible place. I also get why we have the limitations we have now. In theory at least, it is the balance between technology and irresponsible levels of lethality.

That’s why I get annoyed by that ever swinging pendulum. Our side pushes, theirs pushes back. The line should be stationary, and accepted (like it or not by both sides) at least until blasters come along. Anything else is unpredictable and dangerous. Be glad your state isn’t about to reactively revisit all the gun control bills that died in committee earlier this session. One or two wet noodle Republicans and VA could turn into the next MD or CT. And that would be very bad.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
7,926
407
83
44
VA
...We as a country need to decide just how valuable human lives are and if we decide death is unacceptable beyond disease and accidents, then we need to ban guns, abortion and death penalty. If we decide liberty is more important than life, then all 3 need to be legal. No ifs ands or buts (except the abortion thing when the mother’s life is at serious risk). I’m so fucking tired of this contradictory argument from both sides when it is so black and white simple. Death or no death. They should all be tied together. Period.


No ruffling, just another perspective on that. This one is Constitution based, not feelings based.

The Constution broadly guarantees our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and specifically grants us the right to not be owned by our government. It’s whole purpose is to the limit the potential for a tyrannical government. That’s the 2nd Amendment and why banning all guns would mean we are no longer a free Constituional Republic. Lives are lost every day and will always be lost because irresponsible people (and even evil people, until they are convicted) have the same freedoms as everybody else. That’s the cost of having the freedoms and the tools to maintain them.

People who break the law to the point of being convicted of a capital felony are long past the rights of the citizen and are only protected in that they can expect to be punished within the confines of the Constitution, not cruelly or unusually. But they are no longer qualified to that life, liberty or PoH once convicted. If deemed by their peers and the presiding judge, their life is no longer protected. Thus capital punishment, and we are all better for it.

Now this one, abortion. Even a lot of folks close to me would disagree with my perspective here. It comes down to when a person is viable as a person. And if that person is (going to be) born on US territory (whether or not I agree with that). That person is entitled to the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, including the right to live. The easiest way to determine this is to pick a landmark that would be the cutoff of when modern medicine absolutely could not ensure the continued life of a baby delivered.

The easiest way would be the heartbeat, as that is quantifiable and easily able to be confirmed. I feel it is safe to say that there is no way a baby prior to that could be considered a viable person, or have a developed brain able to feel pain or terror at being terminated. So I am okay with the morning after/plan B stuff, and believe it should be administered in all cases of rape/incest, unless the victim decides she does not wish to receive it. Otherwise, the mother should have the first couple weeks to determine if she does not want to continue a pregnancy. After that, it should be carry it and release it for adoption only, and any doctor performing abortion would be guilty of murder, and any mother, an accessory.
 

dannyc

Resident Cuban
Jan 28, 2012
620
19
18
20
miami
Reasonable people can do that. People/communists bent on world domination (I wish that was an exaggeration) are not reasonable. They see compromise was a weakness and a way to slowly destroy their enemy. Death by a thousand cuts.

Once it was fully automatics. Reasonable
Yesterday it was bumpstocks. Reasonable
Today it will be suppressors. Reasonable
Tomorrow it will be?

They won't stop until we have no defense. Freaking knives are banned in the UK.

We can keep being reasonable. They won't be. So, what isn't reasonable?
I for one am No compromise when it comes to gun laws for that exact reason. I Left the NRA while still in HS and now will be joining the GoA as they are a no compromise gun owners group
 

G.I.*EDDIE

gobbles a LOT of cock
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
43,433
422
83
S.E. Mich :(
All of what Dan said. I'll add that as long as we have the welfare situation that we do, I'd okay with tax payer funded/assisted abortions. It's that (what, a thousand bucks?) or providing a lifetime of welfare to unwanted and unsupported children. And a lifetime of welfare to their unwanted unsupportable children and infinity.
 

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,786
319
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
I obviously fall on the side of guns, abortion and death penalty, but feel everything should be kept in balance. If people want to limit abortions, then they need to accept the same limits on guns. Can’t say no abortions after 6 weeks and then say I get anything I want for my guns (obviously not Dan’s argument). One side can’t get everything and call the other side out for compromise.

As far as death penalty goes, the way it stands today I’d rather have it banned since it costs way more to execute with all of the retrials and such than it does to keep them in for life. I think if you get convicted for a murder by DNA or very clear video of your face and all of the evidence is proven to be collected correctly after a year period of review by an independent agency, then they march your ass out and zap you on the spot. If you don’t have that, then you can rot in prison until you can prove yourself innocent or you die of old age.
 

K-Tiger

All solutions are final.
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
31,124
173
63
What is the reasoning or need for a silencer for the vast majority of people? Are they useful in hunting? I'd think it'd be good not to spook the game.. but it also lowers the velocity.. so.. ? I can't think of any reason for anyone to have one other than (A) to look cool or (B) do some shady shit.

Did we find out if he got his legally? If so, yeah he already jumped through a ton of hoops and still got through.
A: Most of the reasoning for the suppressor ban was their use by hungry motherfuckers in poaching. B: Suppressors, much like the "stackin' them hoodlums like cord wood" switchblade knives, don't operate in the real world like they do in Hollywood schlock. They banned these things for the sake of "doing something" and relieving the citizenry of another little piece of their rights.

And I'm no longer interested in compromise. Gun owners are the only ones doing any "compromising", and have been since even before 1934. Unlike abortion, ownership of "arms" (Yeah, bitch, "arms" encompasses more than just guns, deal with it). is an enshrined right.
Not that I support a ban on abortions, seeing what depths society has brought women (and by extension, men) to. I've come to find that some children are probably better off not being born. Better to be aborted than thrust into the shitshow of life to be mothered by a whore and fathered by the State.
I used to be tolerant of abortion as long as the taxpayer didn't have to foot the onerous bill, but now I say let them. If a grown-ass woman is so irresponsible as to get pregnant unintentionally, and enough of a sociopath to go against every instinct nature has given her as to want to abort that child out of pure convenience, then yes, we should pay for the abortion.
Women like that should probably be kept as far away from the raising of children as humanly possible. You can work a fucking seven hundred dollar smart phone, but you and your sperm donor for the night can't suss out how a fucking twenty-five-cent condom works. You can't really take care of yourself, much less a fucking child. Yeah, you definitely should get that abortion on us.

Since Roe, there has been something on the order of a 30:1 abortion to gun death ratio, likely higher when we take a way the specious numbers-padding of suicides using a gun. Yeah, sure, okay, but we have a gun problem. The maddening thing is it's all part of the plan, but I digress. This is a toy board, no sense in ranting about real world issues.

I'm never gonna have kids, but I am gonna go hug my niece, and pray to Christ that she somehow avoids growing up to be a stupid fucking whore. At least I won't likely live to see it if she does.

tl;dr: Life sucks, hug any kids in your life (where appropriate, don't go Joe Biden on us)