Having seen the 60 Minutes presentation, no hatchet job, as widely predicted

[El Rojo]

Remember that little adventure had by the lunatic in his armored bulldozer in Colorado last year?

Two things make the bulldozer tank thing interesting. 1), The bad guy had a .50 BMG in his tank/dozer. If I recall correctly it looked like a Barrett M82A1, but it was stuck in a gun port and virtually worthless inside that tank dozer as a long range rifle. 2) Also if I recall correctly a civilian brought his .50 BMG over to the cops and they did try several shots from the .50 BMG at his tank dozer to no effect. He had some serious armor going on or maybe they weren't using the right bullets.

So in one case you have a bad guy possessing a .50 BMG in a crime, but we aren't sure if he fired it or not. In the same situation you had a civilian coming to law enforcement's aide with the same type of rifle, but with little effect. So I guess they aren't as big and bad as some people make them out to be.

 

[rick_reno]

I was pretty irritated by Ed Bradley's snide comments at the end of the piece about Ashcroft's changing the DOJ rules to only keep firearms purchase records for 24 hours (down from 90 days).

Sure, they're keeping ACTIVE records for 24 hours. The question to ask is what is their backup schedule - and how long do they retain backup media?

 

[Coyote84]

The 18 inch group

just shows that the shooter was selected for his political bent, not his operational ability.

 

[GSB]

It really shocked me. IMO a firearm should never be referred to as a "toy."

Guess I have to stop everyone from calling my local gun shop the "toy store" then. Lighten up, Francis. A fair number of my guns and those of my friends ARE adult toys purchased for amusement purposes (none of us bought ARs because we deeply believe we will need them as practical tools). Just because you call something a "toy" doesn't give you license to treat it with less respect. A private aerobatic plane or a race bike is a "toy" as well, but you treat them with the respect deserved by something that can kill you and others if you misuse it. If somebody hears the word "toy" and thinks that means you hand it to a two year old to play with in the street, that's their problem, not mine.

 

[Henry Bowman]

(none of us bought ARs because we deeply believe we will need them as practical tools)

Really?

 

[Dave R]

I was pretty irritated by Ed Bradley's snide comments at the end of the piece about Ashcroft's changing the DOJ rules to only keep firearms purchase records for 24 hours (down from 90 days).

IIRC, the original law creating that Federal Database only allowed them to keep the records for 24 hours. During the Clinton administration, they begain keeping them 90 days specifically so they would make it onto the regular backup.

Ashcroft brought them back into compliance with the law by only storing the records 24 hours.

The records should probably not be stored at all, since that creates gun registration. The original compromise was 'we'll just store them 24 hours in case we have a crime and need to check that day's gun sales."

Or I may have mangled the story. Which I originally read on TFL, if memory serves.

Can anyone corroborate this?

 

[MikeK]

You may watch the show here:

http://www.wsu.edu/~ryjones/60minutes-50cal-lieslieslies.wmv

 

[MaterDei]

Thanks for the link, Mike

 

[Dbl0Kevin]

can see why police officers need rifles, not M16's. I don't have any problem with police officers posessing M16's (just like other law abiding citizens), but I don't see 3 round burst or full auto as neccessary for the job.

I just love when I read statements like these on a supposed gun enthusiast message board. We are the ones that have to put up with the "why do you need that" arguement most yet some people see fit to use it for others. Is that the "rules for thee but not for me" philosophy or do you not even see the hypocrisy? :banghead:

 

[Stand_Watie]

I just love when I read statements like these on a supposed gun enthusiast message board. We are the ones that have to put up with the "why do you need that" arguement most yet some people see fit to use it for others. Is that the "rules for thee but not for me" philosophy or do you not even see the hypocrisy?

There was no hypocrisy in my statement. I responded to someone who introduced the "neccessity" argument with my opinion on that neccessity.

The right of citizens (including police officers) to keep and bear arms (including m16's) isn't subject to a litmus test of neccessity. The tools that public servants are given to perform their jobs frequently are. Although there are undoubtedly rare exceptions, I don't believe police officers need to drive corvettes or hum-vees either.

 

[CAPTAIN MIKE]

Does Fobus Have a HOLSTER For It ???

These are "WAY Cool". Kinda difficult for open carry, but I wonder: does Fobus have a BIG HOLSTER for it????

 

[LoneStranger]

Captain Mike, You are only allowed Mexican Carry, particuarly if you want to CCW.

They'll either faint from fear and envy or because they have laughed themselves sick.

 

[mrkubota]

"I don't. I can see why police officers need rifles, not M16's. I don't have any problem with police officers posessing M16's (just like other law abiding citizens), but I don't see 3 round burst or full auto as neccessary for the job."

Actually, the rifles issued to patrol officers were M-16s donated to the department by the National Guard and were converted to semi-auto before being distributed. (they did get to keep the hi-cap mags though...)

Only the SWAT officers have selective fire weaponry.

 

[Stand_Watie]

Actually, the rifles issued to patrol officers were M-16s donated to the department by the National Guard and were converted to semi-auto before being distributed. (they did get to keep the hi-cap mags though...)
Only the SWAT officers have selective fire weaponry.

Sounds like a good plan to me.