Posted on 01/29/2011 10:19:21 AM PST by OneVike
Anyone who has ever used a firearm of any kind understands the dangers involved. Unlike most liberals who want to blame guns for all the violence they are used for, most conservatives understand the dangers involved in using guns. After the recent shooting in Tucson, the media and the left came out attacking guns and right wing rhetoric for what one crazy leftist did. Yes, it was a deranged individual who had gotten himself involved with a movement that is so far left he thought his Democrat Congresswoman, Gabrielle Gifford, was a conservative nut that needed to be eliminated. I wrote about the Tucson shooter's infatuation with the zeitgeistist movement a few weeks ago.
As one of the few Democrats who has consistently stood in defense of our 2nd Amendment right, Gabrielle Gifford has respect for guns and understands that proper training is needed to ensure their proper use. Let me say now that I pray for her, because it truly is my heartfelt desire that she will recover 100%. When I think about the whole incident, I cannot help but get a little angry at the leftists, because every political assassination in the United States in the last 50 years has been done by the hand of leftist. Those of us on the right in America have consistently taken our fight to the ballot box. We don't take our debate to the extreme that the leftists always do.
You see, as a rule conservatives understand that guns are the best used to protect ourselves and our loved ones from the criminals of our society. We use them to defend our families, while the leftists continue allowing these criminals to use the revolving door called the justice system to repeatedly terrorize us. No, we won't use our guns against the left, as they do against us. However we will defend ourselves, and in doing so we must practice so that we will be ready for the moment another criminal, the leftists paroled, decides that which is ours is theirs.
However, even when a person is properly trained accidents can and do happen from time to time. It is moments when these accidents happen that we hope to learn lessons for future reference. I offer these two videos so that you can see how dangerous weapons can be, even when used in a controlled environment that is meant to keep the shooter and others safe. We live in a fallen world, so even the best of us make mistakes, and that is when accidents can happen.Sadly, even when we do everything right that which is unexpected can give one a near death experience.
I was probably about 14. My brother and I were enjoying taking off pieces of the tank one shot at a time.
The bowl wasn’t as much fun. I decided the bowl and I could both co-exist in peace. We made a truce. I would no longer shoot at it, and it would no longer shoot at me.
Nowadays, I would just try to blow it up. Or maybe watch someone else blow it up while I safely hide behind the propane tank.
On days when all firing points are occupied and everyone is blasting away in our local indoor range, I’ve had flattened bullets come fluttering back from the downrange trap that bounced off my chest and legs. I’ve been hurt worse by hot spent brass dropping down my shirt front, or being ejected into my forehead.
Did that to myself once with a BB-gun when I was a kid. Came back and hit me in the forehead. Fortunately it wasn’t in the eye. Those steel BBs ricocheted like crazy. Pellet gun with lead pellet was much safer.
I am really shocked by all the shooting range war stories I am reading on this.
I guess because most of my shooting consisted of military or the back 40, I am not as familiar with shooting ranges as many so I don’t see or hear a lot of this.
However, I am quite surprised by the number of near serious casualty instances everyone is mentioning.
Yea I never liked those steel pellets either. The lead ones absorb the impact and so they don’t come back.
Parted his hair.
In training long ago, we had a live fire shoot house. The walls were stacks of tires, filled with sand. It always felt crazy to enter a room with rubber walls, and fire shots. Good fun,,,
I have a scar from a ricocheted BB. It hit me in the temple about 50 years ago.
Good point - we used to buy surplus FMJ 7.62 rounds for very little and reload them for deer season after target practice.
The headline contains a misuse of the phrase “near-death experience.”
Like “fail-safe,” “begs the question,” and “politically correct,” it’s a phrase that has been picked up by people who never bother to investigate what it really means.
Lon Horiuchi was FBI. Also he was acting under ROEs established by a higher up.
>The male adult skull is but 6.5 millimeters thick, and that is how close he came to death.
Not necessarily, the round may not have had the force to puncture & penetrate the skull. Further the 6.5mm you’re quoting is [perpendicular] thickness, but the bullet wasn’t traveling perpendicular to the skull and would have to pierce MORE than 6.5mm.
>Lon Horiuchi was FBI. Also he was acting under ROEs established by a higher up.
No he wasn’t. According to the official reports the ROE was not weapons-free, it was restricted to any armed male.
Also, included in any sniper training is to be sure of one’s target (hell, that’s a general firearm-safety rule) so if you are claiming that he WAS following the ROE this means that these reports (on what the ROE was) were perjury and/or fraudulent OR he was not trained.
In either case he is a murderer, the only real difference is the culpability of his superiors. If the ROE was merely “any armed male” being a valid target, then the administrators & supervisors have a valid legal defense; if the ROE was not so then they are guilty of murder as well.
I wasn’t saying it was a good shoot. You completely missed my point in the context of what I was replying to. OV made a comparison the the ATF agent using a pistol as an ear plug obviously implying that the shooting on Ruby Ridge was out of stupidity. Stupidity had nothing to do with it it was cold blooded murder and the ROEs set down specifically for that situation led to it.
The siege and controversyThe Ruby Ridge Rules of Engagement (ROE) were drawn up on the basis of reports from USMS and FBI headquarters, bolstered by unconfirmed news media accounts accepted by HQ, that exaggerated the threat posed by the Weavers.
1. If any adult male is observed with a weapon prior to the announcement, deadly force can and should be employed, if the shot can be taken without endangering any children.
2. If any adult in the compound is observed with a weapon after the surrender announcement is made, and is not attempting to surrender, deadly force can and should be employed to neutralize the individual.
3. If compromised by any animal, particularly the dogs, that animal should be eliminated.
4. Any subjects other than Randall Weaver, Vicki Weaver, Kevin Harris, presenting threats of death or grievous bodily harm, the FBI rules of deadly force are in effect. Deadly force can be utilized to prevent the death or grievous bodily injury to oneself or that of another.[43]Standard deadly force policy of the FBI was: "Agents are not to use deadly force against any person except as necessary in self-defense or the defense of another, when they have reason to believe they or another are in danger of death or grievous bodily harm. Whenever feasible, verbal warning should be given before deadly force is applied."[44] Under the Ruby Ridge ROE 3 and 4, the Weaver dogs, the Weaver children and third parties were subject to the standard deadly force policy and could only be shot in self-defense if they presented a danger of death or grievous bodily harm. However, under the Ruby Ridge ROE 1 and 2, deadly force against the Weaver adults should be used without the justification of defense and without any verbal warning.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.