[quote="Short Hand":cbacf][quote=CoMaToSe]STFU Short

The weapon the guy had is illegal to own in the united states. This is why gun control is bad. Most guns used by criminals are obtained illegally. SO with gun control, you leave the average law abiding citizen defensless against criminals.[/quote:cbacf]

As proven on previous pages you can barely tell what type of gun it is[/quote:cbacf]its a m1 carbine

Looks like the cop may have shot back a little at first kus it looks like one of the door windscreens on the truck breaks. I'm not too sure what I'd do if I was in that situation, getting in the car & driving off would probably be the wise choice when faced with a machine gun but then the cop would prolly get charged with cowardice etc. Better that though than getting blown to hell. Quite a disturbing video. eek:

machine gun????????????????????????????

that is a semi auto perfectly legal rifle in the hands of someone that shouldnt have it

First off the rifle is a auto-loading rifle, not a machine gun. you have to pull the trigger for each shot. The second point is about assault weapons, if I were to tap you ever so lightly about the brain housing group with a baseball bat, you'd be convinced that the baseball bat was an assault weapon. Third is about gun control, which the cop lost when he panicked. All the training in the world gets thrown out the window when you panic under fire. The officer emptied his pistol at the guy and missed every shot.

[quote=Nyck]well it fucking wasnt dip shit so shut the fuck up.

It was some type of 30 caliber semi automatic rifle[/quote:c31eb]

M14?

Its not big enough to be an M-14. It could be a mini 14 or mini carbine. I can't see it that well. M-14s are illegal to own because of the select fire switch, the civilian model would be a M1-A1.

This isn't the case here because we know the outcome. If the policeman had shot the guy when he was dancing around like a lunatic it would have saved the officer's life but some folks would be screaming that he didn't have to do it. Hindsight is 20/20.

There ought to be a law that if the officer tells you to "get your hands outa your pocket" or "get back here" a certain number of times and you don't do it he can shoot you on principle alone.

Actually, my uninformed friend, Australia and England now suffer from even MORE violent crime as a result of disarming its populace. It's very easy to understand why. I will gladly link you to the data if you really wish to be educated: it may sound counter-intuitive, but when you publicly announce that no one has an efficient means of defending self and property, you are giving criminals the thumb's up to do anything they please. Of course, I'm not even going to get into the idea that a phone call will save you or that your public servants can be everywhere and are somehow more qualified to use firearms after a 14 hour training period. Simply ignorance, and I for one am tired of the feel-good bullshit that you try to feed everyone. </rant>

PM ME if you want the research reports. I will happily set the record straight.

PS. If you're going to get into the NEEDS fallacy, I will oblige you to dispose of practically everything you own, because by your own logic, they serve no real purpose other than make your life slightly easier to live. You don't need your car, your television or that computer. Please relinquish them immediately as they are unnecessary and can pose a health hazard to all the sheeple out there...

I think you are the only Canadian on this board that understands that!
+1

[quote="Short Hand":e57ca][quote=CoMaToSe]STFU Short

The weapon the guy had is illegal to own in the united states. This is why gun control is bad. Most guns used by criminals are obtained illegally. SO with gun control, you leave the average law abiding citizen defensless against criminals.[/quote:e57ca]

As proven on previous pages you can barely tell what type of gun it is.. yet you can claim it is illegal. Gun control = loaded crazy vet with no gun = one less dead officier = one kid with a father. Period. rolleyes:[/quote:e57ca]
Actaully no. The weapon used was, in 1999, considered an assault weapon. Any semi or fully automatic weapon is considered an assault weapon. The clinton administrations illegalizing of all assault weapons was in effect in 1999. SO yes, the weapon used was illegal.

Ahh Grasshopper, the Clinton assault rifle ban covered military looking rifles like AR-15, AK-47 and the like not civilian plinkers like Ruger Mini-14 or Mini Carbines. It also only banned the sale of these rifles not the possesion of them.



wallbash: calmdown:

False.

An interesting side-note related to "assault weapons": in Canada, we have a few semi-auto centerfire rifles (like the AR-15) that fall under the restricted firearms section based on their esthetics, which is regretable considering how other "less physically threatening" models are capable of the same <liberal> damage </liberal> and magazine loading restrictions. After all, you wouldn't want people to think they are functionally identical...

rolleyes:

A Gun is not needed in your ordinary life, it has no purpose but to kill.

PRO-MURDER!