Firearms, NFA specific

[Rockpup]

for non USA residents, NFA firearms are anything full auto, short barrel (16" or less), suppressors, or other destructive devices. Unlike the other firarms thread I started, this will not involve heels.. although I sometimes wear a pair to the range *grin* Very soon I should be able to take possesion of my first suppressor, a gem-tech Trinity model.. started the process early last May.. been a while. As prices of most class 3 firearms in the US have skyrocketed since the 1986 ban on new registrations, my interests have fallen more on the other ends of the spectrum. Suppressors/silencers do get my attention on a profesional basis as I deal with noise/vibration complaints, and suppressors do an amazing job of noise suppresson. If anyone has experience with suppressors please feel free to leave your comments here. I am considering either a .45 suppressor, or a .223 suppressor as my next purchase, and would love to have feedback from varous sources. Jim

[Dr. Shoe]

Americans and their guns again....

[hoverfly]

Americans and their guns again....

And this for some one who lives in a "Nanny State"!! Oh Pllllllease....... As bad are things in America right now one thing is for sure, it's not the firearms that we bare, it's the leaders that lead us in this country to the violence. It's been prove when the average American with a fair income would rather work than use a firearm in a robbery or drug deal gone bad. Poverty and lack of equality brings crime, not the guns, not the knives not the bats, billy clubs razorblades Nail clippers seizors, ice picks, and stiletto heels. We elect them to do a job, serve the American public. Well the last part in reality is that they serve their own interests ahead of the greater good. Thankfully we have guns to protect our self in our own best interests.

Now to stay on topic, would using a bunch of soda bottles work just a fine? I mean, Steven Sagull did??!! JK

[Dr. Shoe]

The problem is, it is so easy to escalate the violence. I do not know anyone personally who has been the victim of gun crime in the UK. Can the average American say the same? The biggest problem of carrying a gun is the fact that you would tend to be bolder in confronting situations which you'd avoid if you weren't; this is how people get hurt. It's the same when carrying a knife or any other concealed weapon. My father's neighbour shot his own son dead because he thought he was a burglar. Another friend of my father's shot a mirror in the dark because he saw the outline of a person coming toward him who never answered when he challenged him. Columbine springs to mind as well as San Ysidro, it is too easy for an angry American to go home, get a gun and go and shoot the man who sacked him. BTW, my father lives in San Diego.

[hoverfly]

The problem is, it is so easy to escalate the violence. I do not know anyone personally who has been the victim of gun crime in the UK. Can the average American say the same?

The biggest problem of carrying a gun is the fact that you would tend to be bolder in confronting situations which you'd avoid if you weren't; this is how people get hurt. It's the same when carrying a knife or any other concealed weapon.

My father's neighbors shot his own son dead because he thought he was a burglar. Another friend of my father's shot a mirror in the dark because he saw the outline of a person coming toward him who never answered when he challenged him. Columbine springs to mind as well as San Ysidro, it is too easy for an angry American to go home, get a gun and go and shoot the man who sacked him. BTW, my father lives in San Diego.

Your father's neighbors and Friends deserved what happened for their careless actions, in failing to learn how to use the firearm properly, and failing to identify friend or foe. Such a device and it's responsibility is no different to operating a car, both are lethal weapons. Should you think everybody cars should be taken away just because people make bad judgments in their operation's every day and cause catastrophic accidents? It's really to easy to run somebody over because they cut you off.

What about Columbine? Why is it when groups of people who attack people who are weaker or different than the rest of them? Why do people stand by and do noting to help these people, when social skills and disabilities hinder their abilities to be "normal"? Why is it basic animal instincts is so dominating in a modern society and allowing others to attack the week as if they were sick? This antisocial behavior is allowed and people blame the kids who fight back because others pushed them over the edge? Don't forget in Columbine, they also had 20lbs propane tanks, if they actually used those in stead of having guns, allot more people would halved been maimed disfigured and dead if those were set off. I am not saying that the victims deserved what happened to them, but for those who survive, I hope they are smart enough to realize that their actions may have been the cause of the end result. But instead I am more willing to bet they are not that smart.

If this is your kind of thinking your Nanny state is no different than ours, it's just covered in more BS and not taking the responsibility of your actions, in this country you are still held responsible, though it's flawed it's a better than being a servant and being told what to, and how to live.

[Rockpup]

Very close to where I live all 6 children of a family were killed when a tired truck driver fell asleep and crushed their van into a school bus. Andrea Yates used a simple bath tub to kill her 5 children. Someone being careless or unstable does not need a gun to kiill. I do not know anyone who's been a victim of gun violence. I know quite a few responcible gun owners who keep their firearms under lock and key, only removed for target or hunting purposes. There has only been one case of a legally registered full auto firearm being used in a crime in the USA, and it was commited by an off duty police officer in Cincinati who used his Mac-10 SMG to kill a drug dealer who's case was dismissed. Jim

[Dr. Shoe]

The guy in Dunblaine was a responsible gun owner who kept his guns locked away as did the man behind the Hungerford massacre... The kids at Columbine had fathers who kept their guns locked away too as did the father of the youth at San Ysidro. Saying about cars being just as dangerous as guns is a typical argument used by people to justify owning a gun; smokers use the same argument, ie crossing road vs. smoking. There is absolutely no reason why a normal householder would need a gun other than paranoia or a deep rooted desire to harm others. One question: when you shoot at the range, are the targets roundels or the military style manshapes?

[heelsRus]

When used correctly a gun results in a death. When used correctly a car results in transportation. Yeah, I know, not quite accurate. Guns are used for target practice (fun!), hunting (food!) and misc other things that are perfectly valid. Just not in the Canadian Military :-) For the 9months (maybe 10) I was working in Toronto there was at least a murder a weekend. I'd go back to news that someone had shot or stabbed someone, or thrown their kid and then themselves off a bridge over the highway (thankfully the kid survived and the father died). It was getting stupid. The publicized cause was illegal firearms (handguns) smuggled in from the US. Toronto has a few really bad areas and that was where most of this crap was happening. Equality is something you have to fight for - not with guns but by education and hard work. You don't get equality using a gun, you certainly don't get respect, and you likely won't get equality in a short period. If you're poor or feel unduly put upon, you have a choice: get educated (it's free here), get a job, and pull yourself up; or get a gun and turn to crime. I'm all for guns for target practice, etc. but against them for plenty of other uses (criminal uses). Having one is taking a risk; a risk that you might pull it out and kill a family member or a friend, or ... To outlaw them entirely would mean that only the criminals would have guns (hey, they don't register their firearms). And a civilian with a fully automatic (hell, even semi-automatic) weapon stored in their home isn't necessary, in my opinion (though it would be fun to let off a few rounds). When do you see _that_ many mice coming at you?

[hoverfly]

The guy in Dunblaine was a responsible gun owner who kept his guns locked away as did the man behind the Hungerford massacre...

The kids at Columbine had fathers who kept their guns locked away too as did the father of the youth at San Ysidro.

First of all, you apparently missed the point, it does not take a gun to commit an act of violence, people are very resourceful and very determined. Nothing will stop them unless human intervention is involved, another caught before or during the act. But if society took responsibility in the first place, such violence would not happen. In this counrty mentail illness are still a misunderstood, and very much ridiculed.

Saying about cars being just as dangerous as guns is a typical argument used by people to justify owning a gun; smokers use the same argument, ie crossing road vs. smoking.

I am not taking how dangerous the two are I am pointing out the responsibility and accountability of using such devices. Both require good trained judgment. For comparison, Your friends, used very poor judgment, they themselves are lucky that they are still alive. Used in an automobile, they themselves are lucky to be alive in using poor judgment.

There is absolutely no reason why a normal householder would need a gun other than paranoia or a deep rooted desire to harm others.

Yes there is, it's called balance of power. For one reason Police departments are reluctant to publicly admit the the numbers of crimes prevented or stoped were by armed citizens was higher than those stoped by law enforcement. In this country there will never be enough law enforcement, because in times of poor economic condition, law enforcement man power is one of the first to be cut to balance budgets. Now as for paranoia of deep rooted desire to harm others, no sane person has any intentions of harming others, but these same people when threatened could become killers because of the will to survive no mater what are the costs, It's called basic instinct.

One question: when you shoot at the range, are the targets roundels or the military style manshapes?

Depends, if I am having fun it's clay pigeons, cans, bottles, wood, barrels etc ect.... As for man shapes, I would be using them for self defense training. In a situation it's not time to think much, it's time to act, there for such targets are need because your response by recognition, not analogizing. Todays law enforcement people train allot, but still kill innocent people, were only human.

[Rockpup]

I only use round targets, or simply at clay targets/boxes/cans. Most 'silhouette' style targets are used either in police/self defence training, or in competitions that are based on self defence training. I've also seen targets with Osama's head on them.. a bit of dark humor for sure, but in itself dangerous? No. Your statement that "There is absolutely no reason why a normal householder would need a gun other than paranoia or a deep rooted desire to harm others." is absolutly false. There are many households where target shooting has been involved since a previous generation changed from bows+arrows to muzzleloaders. There are alot of social causes of needless crime and violence. If you wish to discuss them you'd do better to start a new thread as alot of people willing to discuss that may have no desire to look into a thread about lawfull usage of NFA items.. such as using suppressors to help protect your hearing when you are at a range/hunting.. which is encouraged by the swiss govt.

[Dr. Shoe]

I didn't know you lived in Switzerland?... This is the last I'm going to say on the subject: If you are going to shoot on the range why do you not keep your guns there? Afraid they might get stolen? So what's stopping someone stealing them from your house? Why do you need automatic weapons capable of shooting about 300 rounds a minute? Why isn't an air rifle or a BB gun sufficient? Or even a muzzle loader? OK, scrub that last question; I have done target shooting myself. Why a silencer and not ear-defenders instead? I'm afraid that there is no situation where it is good to have a gun in the house.

[Dawn HH]

I agree Dr. Shoe, we have never had guns in our household. The only guns that I have fired were during military training, and I have a couple of medals for doing that. Cheers--- Dawn HH

[BlondeBimbo]

I am very disappointed with this thread! OK, some of us may not be into firearms etc. but I am shocked by the hostility here. In this forum many talk about openness and furthering the cause of men wearing high heels; yet which is the most unusual – there are millions of sporting Gun owners & users out there – my guess is there are not as many male high heel wearers! My belief is that if you wish to be treated with the openness and acceptance you desire, then you must yourselves offer the same acceptance to others with their interests. As an aside, I note some remarkable stretches of either imagination, or twisting of truth here – a pity because the investigation findings are available to the public. Nether Ryan, nor Hamilton were responsible gun owners, Ryan was rejected from the club he tried to join, they passed information to the police pertaining to his unsuitability, he then applied quoting an imaginary gun club, so the police ignored the warnings of unsuitability, did not bother to check on there being a real club and issued his certificate – he then went postal in Hungerford. Hamilton did belong to a gun club in the 70’s, but again was rejected by a number of clubs after showing his unsuitability, for over 12 years he was re-issued certificates besides not belonging to a club or being able to show good reason – in fact he bought or reloaded no ammunition over this time, upon trying to join a club just before Dumblane they also reported his unsuitability to the police so he also applied quoting an imaginary gun club again the police ignored the warnings, issued a certificate and he went postal in Dumblane. (which is just a few miles from me!). As for home storage, what happens for people who use the guns in pursuit of their work – leave it in the middle of a farmer’s field where they were last carrying out pest control? How would you be able to run competitions or attend more than one club/range? The silly arguments about a gun used correctly results in death, or there is no reason why anyone would need a gun other than paranoia or a desire to harm others just illustrates a closed mind and lack of understanding, - why would anyone want to throw a javelin? – there is no reason why anyone would need a Speer other than paranoia or a desire to harm others. - Why would anyone want to put a shot? – There is no reason why anyone would need a shot-put other than paranoia or a desire to harm others. Why would anyone want to carry out historical re-enactment? – There is no reason why anyone would need a sword other than paranoia or a desire to harm others…. Of course the list goes on – there are lots of things that exist today used for good or entertainment or sport whose original use or design was not so helpful – the original design for a rocket was to harm others – yet now we use that technology to launch satellites for entertainment. As for moderators this is also encouraged by the UK government – HSE to be exact! When culling, or carrying out other pest control, this is usually a night – the sound of course travels for miles and can cause harm to both the shooter’s ears and to others - ear-defenders of course cannot prevent this (although it can help the shooter – it does not prevent the percussion effect), the use of sound moderators is encouraged. As for types in the UK locally the BR Reflex T4 or T8 is used a lot (Apparently T4 or T8 depends upon calibre) – though smaller and better is the ASE Ultra Jet-Z – but more expensive. They are distributed in the UK locally, but apparently are Finish in origin. I haven’t used or shot any – but they are used by all local estate managers and gamekeepers. As an aside, I do not believe the way to improve society is to restrict people, I would rather live in a society where people may have guns, knifes etc – yet would not use them to harm others; than live where you must stop people from having “Bad things” because they might use them inappropriately - quite simply if there are people who would cause injury to others – stopping them having legal guns etc is not going to stop them – they are just going to obtain illegal ones, or knifes, or baseball bats etc. The big problem is to remove this evil side of society, rather than going for the simple (politically easy) option which does not cure the real problems. BTW what is a BB gun – Should that be something I should use – a BlondeBimbo Gun? BB (Gun?)

[Rockpup]

BB gun would also be an air rifle.. using either a pump to build up air pressure or compressed gas cyl's to fire a BB or a pellet.

[Dr. Shoe]

I am very disappointed with this thread!

OK, some of us may not be into firearms etc. but I am shocked by the hostility here.

I'm sorry if my tone comes across as hostile to you but going back over my posts, I can't see where I was in any way hostile: I am just airing my view son the subject which is what a forum is all about.

In this forum many talk about openness and furthering the cause of men wearing high heels; yet which is the most unusual – there are millions of sporting Gun owners & users out there – my guess is there are not as many male high heel wearers!

Quite. But what about the openness of mind of people who share your point of view?

My belief is that if you wish to be treated with the openness and acceptance you desire, then you must yourselves offer the same acceptance to others with their interests.

I have never said that people shouldn't own a gun if they wanted to, all I said was that no good ever came from it...

As an aside, I note some remarkable stretches of either imagination, or twisting of truth here – a pity because the investigation findings are available to the public.

Nether Ryan, nor Hamilton were responsible gun owners, Ryan was rejected from the club he tried to join, they passed information to the police pertaining to his unsuitability, he then applied quoting an imaginary gun club, so the police ignored the warnings of unsuitability, did not bother to check on there being a real club and issued his certificate – he then went postal in Hungerford.

Hamilton did belong to a gun club in the 70’s, but again was rejected by a number of clubs after showing his unsuitability, for over 12 years he was re-issued certificates besides not belonging to a club or being able to show good reason – in fact he bought or reloaded no ammunition over this time, upon trying to join a club just before Dumblane they also reported his unsuitability to the police so he also applied quoting an imaginary gun club again the police ignored the warnings, issued a certificate and he went postal in Dumblane. (which is just a few miles from me!).

I only used these examples because they are the most high profile. I notice that you don't comment on Columbine nor San Ysidro...

As for home storage, what happens for people who use the guns in pursuit of their work – leave it in the middle of a farmer’s field where they were last carrying out pest control? How would you be able to run competitions or attend more than one club/range?

...You go to the range, sign your gun out from the armourer without ammunition. You then travel to the venue of the competition where the exact quantity of ammo required can be purchased. At the end of the competition you return your weapon to the range. This works very well for the military, why not for civil shooting? Shot guns as used by farmers are (and always have been) controlled under different legislation and they have a legitimate reason for keeping a single weapon. What I have difficulty understanding is why someone would want half a dozen of them and why they want an automatic and why they obsess about silencers!

The silly arguments about a gun used correctly results in death, or there is no reason why anyone would need a gun other than paranoia or a desire to harm others just illustrates a closed mind and lack of understanding, - why would anyone want to throw a javelin? – there is no reason why anyone would need a Speer other than paranoia or a desire to harm others. - Why would anyone want to put a shot? – There is no reason why anyone would need a shot-put other than paranoia or a desire to harm others. Why would anyone want to carry out historical re-enactment? – There is no reason why anyone would need a sword other than paranoia or a desire to harm others…. Of course the list goes on – there are lots of things that exist today used for good or entertainment or sport whose original use or design was not so helpful – the original design for a rocket was to harm others – yet now we use that technology to launch satellites for entertainment.

Who gave "silly arguments" about guns being used correctly? What I worry about is the misuse of guns or people accidently shooting their loved ones or people going home to get a gun to settle an argument. Re shot put and javelines: who is promoting silly arguments now? I agree about swords though and the ownership of these often go hand in hand with machetes, hunting knives etc. I don't think I have ever met a sword owner who didn't have several of them.

When culling, or carrying out other pest control, this is usually a night – the sound of course travels for miles and can cause harm to both the shooter’s ears and to others - ear-defenders of course cannot prevent this (although it can help the shooter – it does not prevent the percussion effect), the use of sound moderators is encouraged.

Actually, culling is carried out in daylight when people can see what they're shooting at, this minimises accidents. You'd be surprised how quickly gunfire dissapates. I could sit in my barrack room and just barely hear the rifle range less than half a mile away, during the day I doubt whether I would have heard it at all.

As an aside, I do not believe the way to improve society is to restrict people, I would rather live in a society where people may have guns, knifes etc – yet would not use them to harm others; than live where you must stop people from having “Bad things” because they might use them inappropriately - quite simply if there are people who would cause injury to others – stopping them having legal guns etc is not going to stop them – they are just going to obtain illegal ones, or knifes, or baseball bats etc.

I agree but the harsh reality of this world is the fact that people get hurt again and again. I'm not talking about criminals, they will always be able to obtain guns regardless how draconian the law is, I am talking about the nice guy next door who one day feels that he has no choice but to get his gun to settle an argument.

The big problem is to remove this evil side of society, rather than going for the simple (politically easy) option which does not cure the real problems.

And how do you suggest we do it? Line them up against a wall and shoot them? Who decides who is "bad" or "good"?

The "Evil side of society" is fed by greed or pride or sex or any of the other deadly sins.

BTW what is a BB gun – Should that be something I should use – a BlondeBimbo Gun?

BB (Gun?)

Don't know either. All I know is that it is an airgun that shoots little balls instead of the waisted slugs.

[Rockpup]

drshoe: Sorry if I seem to be obsessed with suppressors, thats one of the subjects I created this thread for. From this point forward I will make sure that every thread I create will cover every topic ever thought of since man created language. But for now I will try to salvage this thread for its intended purpose. If you are wondering, my interest in silencers/suppressors/sound moderators stems from my family business. We handle noise and vibration analysis and dynamic balancing. The physics involved in dropping a sound pressure wave to 1:10,000 it's original power is of alot of interest to me in a professional manor. I will start an anti-firearm thread in the rant catagory, please direct any further responces there. I do not plan to post any further responces to this thread, and if there is no interest from any other members it will just die a quiet death and you can feel a bit better about yourself.

[Rockpup]

Ok, maybe one more little post...

[dr1819]

Nice! Is it what you normally wear to the range? By the way, NFA - what's it stand for? Non-firing automatic? (I know not right, but would like to know)

[dr1819]

There is absolutely no reason why a normal householder would need a gun other than paranoia or a deep rooted desire to harm others.

Except for the incident that happened the very first time I carried, and another incident four years later, I'd agree with you.

If I hadn't carried on either of those two incidences, however, we wouldn't be having this conversation because I would have been dead.

Twice.

So, sorry, but I don't buy into your "guns not required" rhetoric, Dr. Shoe, and I'm sorry, but you weren't there.

One question: when you shoot at the range, are the targets roundels or the military style manshapes?

Roundels. Best for sighting in my deer handgun.

[Rockpup]

Sorry for the delay, I rarely check this thread anymore. NFA stands for National Firearms Act of 1934, requiring registration of any guns that are fully automatic, suppressed, short barrel, or classified as destructive devices. That photo was taken as a joke right after going for a 45 minute motorcycle ride around town. I did wear 3" heels to the range once for a couple pics, but short of sighting in my varment rifle I'd rather keep my footing secure. Have fun Jim

[Guy N. Heels]

Sorry for the delay, I rarely check this thread anymore.

NFA stands for National Firearms Act of 1934, requiring registration of any guns that are fully automatic, suppressed, short barrel, or classified as destructive devices.

That photo was taken as a joke right after going for a 45 minute motorcycle ride around town. I did wear 3" heels to the range once for a couple pics, but short of sighting in my varment rifle I'd rather keep my footing secure.

Have fun

Jim

Apparently it is impossible to mention firearms in any way on this forum without provoking a literal firestorm of passion and opposing views. Therefore, I will only say that, although I sold my personal sidearm many years ago, I have always felt that those responsible persons who find a need to arm themselves should have the ability to do so.

Along this same line, Carl Rowe, the outspoken antigun journalist at the Washington Post, proved beyond all question the verity of the statement, "When one needs a gun - nothing else will do.", when he was found running around his property waving a gun. There is something both definative and authoritative about a firearm that leaves little room for frivolous discussion.

I hope that all here can understand, that just like an axe, a fire extinguisher or any other tool, firearms do have a distinctive role that they fulfill. Moreover, when you really need one - nothing else will do. On the other hand, these are dangerous items that need to be handled with proper care and by responsible people. They are not for everyone - neither are high heels. So let us respect differing views, even when we do not share the views expressed. After all, the fightings and wars and hostilities among us originate in the heart.

[hoverfly]

There are to many people who believe that there is no need for guns in a average person hands. Complacency is what get people killed, all around us is danger of sorts and fail to recognize it. Just wait until there is a need for one and can't have it. This is why you need a gun, always be prepared, thinks as a MADD directive. Now I own a Sig Sauer P229 .40 next best thing next a .45 ACP ever made in my opinion. The FBI was smart in developing the .40 round as well. Some day I will get my hands on a P226 .40 or .357 Sig.

[jim]

for non USA residents, NFA firearms are anything full auto, short barrel (16" or less), suppressors, or other destructive devices.

Unlike the other firarms thread I started, this will not involve heels.. although I sometimes wear a pair to the range *grin*

Very soon I should be able to take possesion of my first suppressor, a gem-tech Trinity model.. started the process early last May.. been a while.

As prices of most class 3 firearms in the US have skyrocketed since the 1986 ban on new registrations, my interests have fallen more on the other ends of the spectrum. Suppressors/silencers do get my attention on a profesional basis as I deal with noise/vibration complaints, and suppressors do an amazing job of noise suppresson.

If anyone has experience with suppressors please feel free to leave your comments here.

I am considering either a .45 suppressor, or a .223 suppressor as my next purchase, and would love to have feedback from varous sources.

Jim

Well. down here in GODZONE we are able to own suppressors and any citizen can legally purchase one.

There are local manufacturers who turn out units as good (if not better) than the Reflex, these retail from $300-$6oo depending on cal and type of finish required. I have used them on a number of different rifles and handguns and they do exactly what is required of them. The only problem is the increased OL of the firearm...I like 'em short and a suppressor can add between 4"and 24".

At the moment I own only two...my favourite being a small 4" unit on my 16" Ruger1022.I have a 4x40 on top and when using Winchester sub-sonic ammo it takes care of all my pest destruction needs out to about 90 mtrs. This combination is VERY effective when used close to the house or around the horses and other stock. When fired the only sound is that made by the action cycling.A buddy of mine also runs a silenced 1022 but his arangement is far slicker then mine.His suppressor is a custom job that fully encases the barrel from the reciever down to muzzle with a profile similar to a HB.

Is it any quieter than mine..? Yes some,but not by much..

Of course the Reflex on my Savage .308 HB Tac Rifle shuts down the muzzle report efficently but as you know, dose nothing with projectile noise. .Still, they have their place and do cloak the rifleman’s position extremely well.

If I could have my druthers, I would really like to put one on my M1A SOCOM 16.Up to this point in time I have been unable to do so because of the muzzle break and gas lock front sight arrangement Springfield use on this weapons system.Perhaps one day I'll get it sorted..

and for the anti’s…."The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles..."

Molon Labe!

jim

[Guy N. Heels]

There are to many people who believe that there is no need for guns in a average person hands. Complacency is what get people killed, all around us is danger of sorts and fail to recognize it. Just wait until there is a need for one and can't have it. This is why you need a gun, always be prepared, thinks as a MADD directive.

Now I own a Sig Sauer P229 .40 next best thing next a .45 ACP ever made in my opinion. The FBI was smart in developing the .40 round as well. Some day I will get my hands on a P226 .40 or .357 Sig.

With all due respects to the various veiws expressed here, I would like to point out that it is written: "Whoso lives by the sword, dies by the sword." The modern translation would read: He who lives by the firearm (substitute any name or model you prefer), dies by the firearm." While I recognize that there are legitimate uses for firearms, I do draw a distinction between those who bear arms for sporting and other legitimate purposes, and those who pursue armaments as a way of life. Most people who pursue armaments as a way of life tend to come to a bad end.

Along this same line, I am having difficulty envisioning a legitimate use for silencers and equipment of that sort.

[hoverfly]

With all due respects to the various veiws expressed here, I would like to point out that it is written: "Whoso lives by the sword, dies by the sword." The modern translation would read: He who lives by the firearm (substitute any name or model you prefer), dies by the firearm." While I recognize that there are legitimate uses for firearms, I do draw a distinction between those who bear arms for sporting and other legitimate purposes, and those who pursue armaments as a way of life. Most people who pursue armaments as a way of life tend to come to a bad end.

Along this same line, I am having difficulty envisioning a legitimate use for silencers and equipment of that sort.

No body dies by the "sword" we die by each others hands who uses the "sword" Why do you think the liberals lose on gun control issues here in the U.S. They avoid the real issues that causes violence and people know that.

Any way.......I know there is a carbine for the .40 cal but has any one seen one for the Sig .357?

[jim]

Most people who pursue armaments as a way of life tend to come to a bad end.

I would love to know where you got that fact from..

Along this same line, I am having difficulty envisioning a legitimate use for silencers and equipment of that sort.

I've also heard it said that some people have difficulty envisioning a legitimate reason why men should wear heels....

Anyway, just look up.....I gave you one in my post......Sheeesh!

jim

[Dr. Shoe]

There's an ad here in the UK of a kid in a mortuary freezer with the slogan: "Carrying a gun can get you into the coolest places!" I see that the cops in New York shot a guy coming out of a night club the other day. Apparently the fired 40 shots and 21 of them hit the car the guy was travelling in. The question is is where did the other 19 go? Lucky there weren't any bystanders around eh?

[hoverfly]

There's an ad here in the UK of a kid in a mortuary freezer with the slogan: "Carrying a gun can get you into the coolest places!"

I see that the cops in New York shot a guy coming out of a night club the other day. Apparently the fired 40 shots and 21 of them hit the car the guy was travelling in. The question is is where did the other 19 go?

Lucky there weren't any bystanders around eh?

Who the hell knows what actually happen there. To early to pass judgment at this time. But the investigation is going to be very big and long. Public opinion on cops mowing down a bachelor party, very bad for the PD. Thankfully no one else was hurt, with the cops letting of that much fire power in what could be a very congested street was a bad judgment call. I would be looking on how well they were trained and when was the last time they were trained.

[Dr. Shoe]

Indeed. If that had happened here it would have been one or two shots at the most. They seem to have a policy here that if you can't get a clear shot you don't shoot. I don't want to be judgemental but I would be prepared to wager that at least one of those cops let off far more rounds than his colleagues.

[hoverfly]

Indeed. If that had happened here it would have been one or two shots at the most. They seem to have a policy here that if you can't get a clear shot you don't shoot. I don't want to be judgemental but I would be prepared to wager that at least one of those cops let off far more rounds than his colleagues.

The one cop should be the only one to let off the most rounds, is the one who was in the most danger, in this case to be run over by the SUV. Chances are however they all had a clear shot at the SUV, the question is what made each think that they were the ones in danger?

ADD ON:

I found this, what happened was a case of contagious shooting.

By MICHAEL WILSON

Published: November 27, 2006

It is known in police parlance as “contagious shooting” — gunfire that spreads among officers who believe that they, or their colleagues, are facing a threat. It spreads like germs, like laughter, or fear. An officer fires, so his colleagues do, too.

Chester Higgins Jr./The New York Times

From top left, Robert Coombs, Stephon Donaldson and Dewan Seabrooks joined Nicole Paultre, bottom right, whose fiancé was killed, and the Rev. Al Sharpton. The shooting happened early on Saturday, hours before Ms. Paultre was to wed the victim, Sean Bell.

The phenomenon appears to have happened last year, when eight officers fired 43 shots at an armed man in Queens, killing him. In July, three officers fired 26 shots at a pit bull that had bitten a chunk out of an officer’s leg in a Bronx apartment building. And there have been other episodes: in 1995, in the Bronx, officers fired 125 bullets during a bodega robbery, with one officer firing 45 rounds.

Just what happened on Saturday is still being investigated. Police experts, however, suggested in interviews yesterday that contagious shooting played a role in a fatal police shooting in Queens Saturday morning. According to the police account, five officers fired 50 shots at a bridegroom who, leaving his bachelor party at a strip club, twice drove his car into a minivan carrying plainclothes police officers investigating the club.

The bridegroom, Sean Bell, who was to be married hours later, was killed, and two of his friends were wounded, one critically.

To the layman, and to the loved ones of those who were shot, 50 shots seems a startlingly high number, especially since the men were found to be unarmed. And police experts concede that the number was high. Yet they also note that in those chaotic and frightening fractions of a second between quiet and gunfire, nothing is clear-cut, and blood is pumping furiously. Even 50 shots can be squeezed off in a matter of seconds.

“We can teach as much as we can,” said John C. Cerar, a retired commander of the Police Department’s firearms training section. “The fog of the moment happens. Different things happen that people don’t understand. Most people really believe what it’s like in television, that a police officer can take a gun and shoot someone out of the saddle.”

The five officers involved in the shooting were placed on administrative duty yesterday — without their guns — as the Police Department and the Queens district attorney investigated the circumstances surrounding the shooting, and relatives of Mr. Bell, joined by the Rev. Al Sharpton, staged a rally and a march to demand answers.

The officers have not yet been interviewed by police investigators or prosecutors to give their account.

Again and again, the focus of the day returned to the number of bullets that went flying.

One of the officers fired more than half the rounds, pausing to reload, and then emptying it again, 31 shots in all, according to the police. Another officer fired 11 shots. The others fired four shots, three shots and one shot apiece, the police said.

But it is the total number of shots that shook and angered the families of the men and community leaders. “How many shots?” Mr. Sharpton asked yesterday, over and over, in a chant at a rally in a park near Mary Immaculate Hospital, where the wounded men were being treated. The crowd called back, “Fifty!”

Statistically, the shooting is an aberration. The number of shots fired per officer who acted in the 112 shooting incidents this year, through Nov. 19, is 3.2, said Paul J. Browne, a department spokesman. Last year, that number was 3.7 shots fired per officer in 109 incidents. They are down from 4.6 in 2000 and 5.0 in 1995.

But shootings with high numbers of shots fired, however rare, call to mind dark events of the city’s past, like the 1999 killing of Gidone Busch, who was clutching a hammer when officers fired 12 times, and, most notably, the shooting of Amadou Diallo, an unarmed West African immigrant who died in a hail of 41 bullets, also in 1999.

In the 1995 Bronx bodega robbery in which officers fired 125 shots, the suspects did not fire back. “They were shooting to the echo of their own gunfire,” a former police official said at the time.

The shooting on Saturday unfolded in a flash. An undercover officer posted inside the Club Kalua, a site of frequent drug, weapon and prostitution complaints in Jamaica, overheard an exchange between a stripper and a man that led the officer to suspect the man was armed, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said on Saturday. The undercover officer alerted the officers acting as backup outside — there were seven officers in all — about 4 a.m., setting into motion the events to follow later.

Eight men left the club and argued briefly with another man, with one from the group saying, “Yo, get my gun,” Mr. Kelly said.

The eight men apparently split into two groups of four, with one group piling into a Nissan Altima driven by Mr. Bell, Commissioner Kelly said. As an undercover detective who had been following the group on foot approached the vehicle, Mr. Bell drove into him, striking his leg, before plowing into a minivan carrying two backup officers, the commissioner said.

The Altima reversed, mounting a sidewalk and hitting the lowered gate of a building before going forward and striking the van again. The officers opened fire, striking Mr. Bell, 23, twice, in the right arm and neck, Commissioner Kelly said. The critically wounded man, Joseph Guzman, 31, was struck 11 times, and the third man, Trent Benefield, 23, three times. Mr. Kelly said it was unclear whether there was a fourth man in the car and what became of him.

A person familiar with the case who knows the detectives’ version of events said yesterday that it was Mr. Guzman who asked for his gun, and that the first undercover detective on foot clearly identified himself to the occupants of the car and, gun drawn, told them to get out. Instead, the person said, they roared toward him. That detective fired the first shot.

In the ensuing barrage, one shot struck the window of a house, another a window at an AirTrain platform, injuring two Port Authority police officers with flying glass. It appeared that the Altima was struck by 21 shots, fewer than half of the number fired, the police said.

The whole thing most likely took less than a minute. The officer who fired 31 times could have done so in fewer than 20 seconds, with the act of reloading taking less than one second, Mr. Cerar said. The 49 shots that followed the undercover detective’s first may have been contagious shooting, said one former police official who insisted on anonymity because the investigation is continuing.

“He shoots, and you shoot, and the assumption is he has a good reason for shooting. You saw it in Diallo. You see it in a lot of shootings,” the official said. “You just chime in. I don’t mean the term loosely. But you see your partner, and your reflexes take over.”

The phenomenon of officers’ firing dozens of shots at a time dates back in part to 1993 and the department’s switch from six-shot .38-caliber revolvers, cumbersome to reload, to semiautomatic pistols that hold 15 rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. The change, like any of its magnitude, followed years of studies and differences of opinion, and finally came into effect after the 1986 murder of a police officer, Scott Gadell, who was reloading his six-shooter when he was fatally shot.

Commissioner Kelly, during his first term in the office, in 1992 and 1993, ordered a switch to semiautomatics, but ordered the clips modified to hold only 10 rounds. That modification was later undone, prompting him, after Mr. Diallo’s shooting six years later, to speculate in a New York Times op-ed article, “Now may be the time to re-impose it and to intensify training that teaches police officers to hold their fire until they know why they are shooting.”

Eugene O’Donnell, a professor of police studies at John Jay College, said a high number of shots fired underscores the threat the officers felt.

“The only reason to be shooting in New York City is that you or someone else is going to be killed and it’s going to be imminent,” he said. “It’s highly unlikely you fire a shot or two shots. You fire as many shots as you have to, to extinguish the threat. You don’t fire one round and say: ‘Did I hit him? Is he hit?’ ”

Mr. Cerar said, “Until we have some substitute for a firearm, there will always be a situation where more rounds are fired than in other situations.”

William K. Rashbaum contributed reporting.