|
I know the California police were out gunned at first and got weapons from a nearby gun shop. I remember the incident. But they had much more than you described as capable of overcoming the body armor in Colorado. You and your pistol in row 20 or 30 would have been able to do nothing effective until way too late if ever. You've offered nothing to support your assertion.
Don't bring my friends and relatives who may be killed into this. That is irrelevant. |
|
|
|
||
|
"If I'm to believe all this it doesn't say much for California police. There were a bunch of them and they had much more powerful weapons than your .380 hadgun and still couldn't bring the srcond guy down for 44 minutes. Or I could not believe all this."
What's to "believe"???? Back in those days (the Calif. shootout, which I vividly remember) the liberal Calif. politicians had kept automatic weapons out of the cops hands. Those cops were outgunned. They had to run to a gunshop and "borrow" the upgraded weaponry they needed! They now are allowed to use what they need. Do some damn research, you lazy ass.
Idid some research (damned or otherwise)and found that body armor can be very effective.
And, what kind of dumbass stuff are you putting out now? Are you saying, because it took 44 minutes in the Calif. shootout incident, for the police to bring the situation to an end, they should not have tried at all?
Where do you get this, "should not have tried at all"? Why would you think that? They should definitely have tried and they did but the body armor was not to be overcome with what they had.
Are you implying that most situations encountered are "hopeless"? Therefore all victims should bend over and kiss their ass goodbye?
Hell no!!!
If someone in your family is shot and killed in a holdup or robbery, (or by a nut job)are you saying you would just as soon not have an armed law abiding citizen there to try to protect the rest of your family, because that citizen "might" fail? You've really lowered your argumentation to an ignorant
Well just keep on laughing if that's how you feel about mass murder.
|
|
|
Malodery is trying to talk us in circles, but it won't work. She/he/it is wrong about this thing. We all know it. But she/he/it, by nature, cannot admit it.
I say again:
"Malodery is showing her/his/its ignorance.
One does not have to penetrate body armour in order to stop a confrontation.
An unexpected center of mass hit on a "bullet proof" vest will often convince an amateur that continuing their behavior is not in their best interest.
A law abiding, trained citizen with a legal weapon firing back at someone is enough to change the situation for the better in many cases. I would want that option if I was in a situation such as occurred in Aurora.
If you dont' believe this, I challenge you to meet me out at Weise's Slough wearing your body armour.
There is no body armour involved, but here is an example of what happens to perps when they get unexpected armed resistance. Note how the "situation" changes instantly. The old geezer that stood up for all those in the cafe was using a .380 handgun which is a rather mild caliber and not normally fatal unless one is lucky enough to get a head shot. I submit that even if the two perps were wearing body armor, they still would have skeedadled. |
|
|
"You've offered nothing to support your assertion."
My assertion? Which particular assertion of mine?
See my previous post, and copied again just above. That post is the first time I've made an assertion about "body armor" that I know of. If not body armor, which assertion are you talking about? I think you have me mixed up with someone else. Typical liberal generalization, right? |
Promote Your Business or Product for $10/mo
For just $10/mo you can promote your business or product directly to nearby residents. Buy 12 months and save 50%!
