One reason for social distancing/isolation

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Seat belts

Generally work quite well (in cars, anyway).

So if I said:
"A seat belt won't save your life if you are in an accident." would that be a true statement?

It depends.

There are an insane amount of variables that go into any particular accident. In certain accidents, the seat belt will save your life. In certain accidents, the seat belt will reduce injury. In certain accidents, the seat belt will kill you. In certain accidents, the seat belt will increase injury. In certain accidents, there will be negligible to no difference either way.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Seat belts

Generally work quite well (in cars, anyway).

So if I said:
"A seat belt won't save your life if you are in an accident." would that be a true statement?

It depends.

There are an insane amount of variables that go into any particular accident. In certain accidents, the seat belt will save your life. In certain accidents, the seat belt will reduce injury. In certain accidents, the seat belt will kill you. In certain accidents, the seat belt will increase injury. In certain accidents, there will be negligible to no difference either way.

Well said.

So public policy should be that seat belts are to be worn while driving (as I see it at least).

tmiddles wrote:
The exact same situation plays out for the policies aimed at slowing the spread of a virus (the "flatten the curve" we hear so much about).

tmiddles wrote:
Do they work 100% of the time? Nope

tmiddles wrote:
Are they effective? Often

Into the Night wrote:
If a seat belt kills you, then the accident itself wasn't survivable without one.

Into the Night wrote:The policies don't work

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
If a seat belt kills you, then the accident itself wasn't survivable without one.

So ????
"So public policy should be that seat belts are to be worn while driving"

You're saying:

Into the Night wrote:The policies don't work

with seat belt laws either?

Should driving while intoxicated be a personal choice too?

Into the Night wrote:
If a seat belt kills you, then the accident itself wasn't survivable without one.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
Seat belts

Generally work quite well (in cars, anyway).

So if I said:
"A seat belt won't save your life if you are in an accident." would that be a true statement?

It depends.

There are an insane amount of variables that go into any particular accident. In certain accidents, the seat belt will save your life. In certain accidents, the seat belt will reduce injury. In certain accidents, the seat belt will kill you. In certain accidents, the seat belt will increase injury. In certain accidents, there will be negligible to no difference either way.

Well said.

So public policy should be that seat belts are to be worn while driving (as I see it at least).

tmiddles wrote:
The exact same situation plays out for the policies aimed at slowing the spread of a virus (the "flatten the curve" we hear so much about).

Do they work 100% of the time? Nope
Are they effective? Often

HarveyH55 wrote:
When I was a freshman in high school, a girl in the senior class drove off the road, down an embankment, and into a river. She lived long enough, to tear out all her fingernails, clawing at the seat belt, which the paramedics cut, because they could release it ether, to recover the body. Car was only under about a foot of water...

I didn't wear a seat belt, until about 4 or 5 years ago, when it became a primary offense, $116 dollar ticket, and 1 point on your license. Points, mean hike in your insurance, or you lose the safe driver discount, same thing. I wouldn't wear the belt, if it wasn't a crime. Been in a few accidents, totaled a couple cars (not my fault), and no injuries, no belt either. Better not to get into accidents in the first place, but how you react, can minimize the damage. When I'm drive, that's about all I do, is drive. Keep the distractions, and playing with knobs and buttons to a bare minimum, wait until stopped, when possible.

A lot of safety equipment, gives a false sense of security. They don't prevent accidents, just hopefully minimize some of the damage.

HarveyH55 wrote:
When I was a freshman in high school, a girl in the senior class drove off the road, down an embankment, and into a river. She lived long enough, to tear out all her fingernails, clawing at the seat belt, which the paramedics cut, because they could release it ether, to recover the body. Car was only under about a foot of water...

I didn't wear a seat belt, until about 4 or 5 years ago, when it became a primary offense, $116 dollar ticket, and 1 point on your license. Points, mean hike in your insurance, or you lose the safe driver discount, same thing. I wouldn't wear the belt, if it wasn't a crime. Been in a few accidents, totaled a couple cars (not my fault), and no injuries, no belt either. Better not to get into accidents in the first place, but how you react, can minimize the damage. When I'm drive, that's about all I do, is drive. Keep the distractions, and playing with knobs and buttons to a bare minimum, wait until stopped, when possible.

A lot of safety equipment, gives a false sense of security. They don't prevent accidents, just hopefully minimize some of the damage.

HarveyH55 wrote:
On a brighter note, the governor of Florida, is starting to open up the economy on Monday, which includes elective surgery. Maybe you can use your $600 stimulus check, to bribe a doctor, to authorize a crap-sack surgery for you. It's not elective surgery, so maybe the doctor will help you defraud Medicare to cover it. They do enough unnecessary procedures on the tax payer dime, nobody would know the difference.

HarveyH55 wrote:
When I was a freshman in high school, a girl in the senior class drove off the road, down an embankment, and into a river. She lived long enough, to tear out all her fingernails, clawing at the seat belt, which the paramedics cut, because they could release it ether, to recover the body. Car was only under about a foot of water...

I didn't wear a seat belt, until about 4 or 5 years ago, when it became a primary offense, $116 dollar ticket, and 1 point on your license. Points, mean hike in your insurance, or you lose the safe driver discount, same thing. I wouldn't wear the belt, if it wasn't a crime. Been in a few accidents, totaled a couple cars (not my fault), and no injuries, no belt either. Better not to get into accidents in the first place, but how you react, can minimize the damage. When I'm drive, that's about all I do, is drive. Keep the distractions, and playing with knobs and buttons to a bare minimum, wait until stopped, when possible.

A lot of safety equipment, gives a false sense of security. They don't prevent accidents, just hopefully minimize some of the damage.

duncan61 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
When I was a freshman in high school, a girl in the senior class drove off the road, down an embankment, and into a river. She lived long enough, to tear out all her fingernails, clawing at the seat belt, which the paramedics cut, because they could release it ether, to recover the body. Car was only under about a foot of water...

I didn't wear a seat belt, until about 4 or 5 years ago, when it became a primary offense, $116 dollar ticket, and 1 point on your license. Points, mean hike in your insurance, or you lose the safe driver discount, same thing. I wouldn't wear the belt, if it wasn't a crime. Been in a few accidents, totaled a couple cars (not my fault), and no injuries, no belt either. Better not to get into accidents in the first place, but how you react, can minimize the damage. When I'm drive, that's about all I do, is drive. Keep the distractions, and playing with knobs and buttons to a bare minimum, wait until stopped, when possible.

A lot of safety equipment, gives a false sense of security. They don't prevent accidents, just hopefully minimize some of the damage.

Some older models Ford cortinas have a habit of catching fire in the centre console.That makes trying to undo the seat belt gangs of fun

HarveyH55 wrote:
I've never bought a factory-fresh, new car. Most of what I end driving are 10-15 years old. I do the work myself, mechanics are expensive. I only pay to to have tires mounted and balanced. My current car, a 2003 Ford Explorer sucks under the hood, but I still get it done. Never a Ford fan, but I'll drive anything cheap...

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
[covid-19 regulations and seat belt laws]
Do they work 100% of the time? Nope
Are they effective? Often

Those policies are not stopping nor are they preventing anything...

tmiddles wrote:
So having and enforcing a law that requires:
1 - Wearing Seat belts
2 - Driving sober
3 - Obeying a speed limit

Has no impact whatsoever on the actual behavior on the road?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
So having and enforcing a law that requires:
1 - Wearing Seat belts
2 - Driving sober
3 - Obeying a speed limit
Has no impact whatsoever on the actual behavior on the road?

What is your position on gun control? The answer is related.

duncan61 wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
When I was a freshman in high school, a girl in the senior class drove off the road, down an embankment, and into a river. She lived long enough, to tear out all her fingernails, clawing at the seat belt, which the paramedics cut, because they could release it ether, to recover the body. Car was only under about a foot of water...

I didn't wear a seat belt, until about 4 or 5 years ago, when it became a primary offense, $116 dollar ticket, and 1 point on your license. Points, mean hike in your insurance, or you lose the safe driver discount, same thing. I wouldn't wear the belt, if it wasn't a crime. Been in a few accidents, totaled a couple cars (not my fault), and no injuries, no belt either. Better not to get into accidents in the first place, but how you react, can minimize the damage. When I'm drive, that's about all I do, is drive. Keep the distractions, and playing with knobs and buttons to a bare minimum, wait until stopped, when possible.

A lot of safety equipment, gives a false sense of security. They don't prevent accidents, just hopefully minimize some of the damage.

Some older models Ford cortinas have a habit of catching fire in the centre console.That makes trying to undo the seat belt gangs of fun

James___ wrote:
The Pinto was notorious for catching on fire. It's gas tank was located between the rear axle and the rear bumper.
Just search Pinto fires.

James___ wrote:
With that said, their overhead cam design provided too little lubrication to the overhead camshaft. As a result, they had to be replaced early and often.

James___ wrote:
I'll leave you guys alone. It's just that GM and the FoMoCo preferred different systems for lubricating their engines.

James___ wrote:
If you're not car guys then you might not know stuff like this.

James___ wrote:
You'll have to forgive me Duncan. In my family, you had to know that timing changes dwell but dwell can't change timing. It's a basic truth in automotive mechanics.

James___ wrote:
This is because dwell determines the gap on a point gap type distributor. ie, if you use points, what determines their gap if you don't have a feeler gauge? It's your dwell angle which might be more accurate.

James___ wrote:
People today don't know what points are.

James___ wrote:
It's all computer controlled in which you have a modulator that fires your spark plugs.

James___ wrote:
Before computers, there was a mechanical distributor that was fed by a coil. Pretty basic unless someone's never worked on one. And now we have computers.

James___ wrote:
@Harvey, my family preferred working on something mechanical to physics.

James___ wrote:
Needless to say, thinking about quantum mechanics and cars usually don't go together.

James___ wrote:
Actually, they don't. As ITN would say, it's a paradox.

James___ wrote:
Why is 15 seconds in the quarter mile fast and what is the difference between 4:11 and 3:89 gears and c?
I mean with 3:89, you can have a higher top end while with 4:11, it's a common gear ratio used. It depends on if your camshaft and where you develop torque and not horsepower. Horsepower is for once you get rolling. Torque gets you off of the line but won't let you have top end speed.

James___ wrote:
And this is where c is relative to an energy/mass ratio. A basic example is E = hf which is frequency. This has to do with mass/amplitude, etc. It's a derivative of force in a way. This is getting back into do you have 3:89 or taller gears? It's all pretty fücking mechanical. And 4:11 is taller because of the higher number of shaft revolutions to rotate your friggin differential. I sure hope ya'all get this.

James___ wrote:
I know you guys won't. In fact I doubt any of you have ever changed the oil in your car/truck/SUV let alone give it a tune up.

James___ wrote:
This is hysterical. You can't work on your vehicle but think you know science? This is hilarious.

James___ wrote:
Thanks Duncan

I have some work to do on my SUV and now realize the main problem is that I need a better hydraulic floor jack. What I have is good for basically changing tires. If you want to take your front end apart, I'd need my SUV higher off the ground.
Don't get me wrong about physics but when you work on a car, it's something that you can put your hands on. A lot of physics relies on if someone can make or do something based on what you think. But with a car, it's something you can enjoy working on and tinkering with. Physics just doesn't allow for that.
This is something my father was the lead machinist on. The original that is. If things like my wood working becomes known, it's because I was raised on mechanics

https://images.app.goo.gl/2a3QVchepDwkZsKm7

This kind of means the things people in my family can do, most people can't. And in here, it's not personal, just have been exposed to more. After all, boats can fly but in here, you guys would say they can't. I know how or why the boat flies just as I do an airplane. Hope you enjoy

HarveyH55 wrote:
I've never bought a factory-fresh, new car. Most of what I end driving are 10-15 years old. I do the work myself, mechanics are expensive. I only pay to to have tires mounted and balanced. My current car, a 2003 Ford Explorer sucks under the hood, but I still get it done. Never a Ford fan, but I'll drive anything cheap...

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
[covid-19 regulations and seat belt laws]
Do they work 100% of the time? Nope
Are they effective? Often

Those policies are not stopping nor are they preventing anything...

So having and enforcing a law that requires:
1 - Wearing Seat belts
2 - Driving sober
3 - Obeying a speed limit

Has no impact whatsoever on the actual behavior on the road?
I'm asking for your perspective not characterizing it.

James___ wrote:
Harvey, if you consider my brother Paul who did 6 or 7 years in the USCG before joining the Air Force, he'd tell us about trips he took on his Honda 750 Super Sport during a kegger.
From MountlakeTerrace he got to the freeway and the headed towards Bellingham. His average speed exceeded 120 mph. He said it felt like his front tire was trying to go underneath his bike, ie., they trailed.

James___ wrote:
To average over 120, he got to the freeway at a lot slower speeds. Nobody asked him how fast he went. It clearly wasn't safe. With driving between Alderwood Manor and South Everett, ask ITN how many cops you see.

James___ wrote:
The freeway is straight enough. At about 140, you need probably at least 1/2 mile of visibility to avoid rear ending some **** doing 55.

James___ wrote:
Anyone who is willing to go over 140 is risking something and it is someone else's life. Stupid as hell but it's sooo muucchhh fun.

James___ wrote:
Just ask ITN if you can roll over 140 between Lynnwood and Everett. It's got a really nice stretch of road for finding out if 140 is good. And it is.

James___ wrote:
Thing is, I doubt 160 is any better. A flat tire at 140 is instant death.

James___ wrote:
But to hear the engine, God, that is what it's all about. Just to hear it sing. That's what it's about.

James___ wrote:
And to think, you guys will never hear such a sound, never hear a sonic boom

James___ wrote:
and never cross oceans.

James___ wrote:
If you're wondering, cancer took care of my ever having kids. So what is better?
My doing things you guys will never do or you guys doing what I'll never do? So you see, I'm not that lucky. I can't tell my kids I did something because I never had any kids.
I'm making the best of my situation. And yep, I am glad that Harvey reminded me of these things. A lot of people have done similar things and had kids, I just wasn't one of those people.

I am sorry for you guys. God, and I thought I missed something in life. Have you ever let off the gas at 140? A TH-400 didn't have another gear to hit. If it did, 160 or 170 was easily possible. And all in 4,000 lbs. of steel. There was nothing light about a 67 GTO. They were heavy and please, obey the speed limits.

James___ wrote:
At over 120 cops don't give chase but you didn't hear it here.

James___ wrote:
see what you started Harvey? Google map Lynnwood and Everett Washington on I-5.

James___ wrote:
Harvey, if you need a clue, me and my dad spent a lot of time "tuning" my GTO because my brother took it out racing. Family is family, right? So no harm done, just gave me and my dad time to spend together.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
So having and enforcing a law that requires:
1 - Wearing Seat belts
2 - Driving sober
3 - Obeying a speed limit
Has no impact whatsoever on the actual behavior on the road?

What is your position on gun control? The answer is related.

There are two parts to ________ control: Who should have the power to decide, and what would you like them to do when they make their decision.

tmiddles wrote:
It's legitimate in my view for our democracy

tmiddles wrote:
to delineate the right to bear arms

tmiddles wrote:
as we do freedom of speech and our other personal liberties.

tmiddles wrote:
To consider it's purpose and utility in court as well as at the ballot box.

tmiddles wrote:
What I would like them to decide is that guns for personal protection should be legal.

tmiddles wrote:
Machine guns, RPGs, High capacity magazine, bump stocks, mortars, artillery, and weapons of war should be illegal (and mostly are).

tmiddles wrote:
So for example a shotgun or revolver, which is not legal to carry outside your own home unless there are special circumstances, should be legal.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Gun control, is only being able to hit your intended target, and nobody else... The only legislation needed, is to insist on every gun owner to get out and practice often. Make sure everyone in the in the house, can safely handle firearms, and hit the intended target, even children. It's important to start young, so they clearly understand that guns aren't toys. All American should be encouraged to own at least one gun. We would have a lot less violent crime, eventually... It would make the job of police officers much easier and safer, less stressful. Criminals would know that every potential victim, is probably armed, and can hit what they point at. Big deterrent, chance of dying over pocket change really isn't worth the risk. Police officers won't have to be quite so polite, since they can pretty much count on everyone being armed, and deal with every call accordingly.

You don't need a gun to rob or murder another human being. Other tools of the violent criminal trade, can do a lot more damage, and much more deadly. Getting shot, isn't the worst thing that can happen to you, most people survive, and fully recover. Getting stabbed or cut, is nasty, and a longer recovery, worse if it gets infected. Getting clubbed or beaten, usually leaves injuries you have to deal with, the rest of your life. Doesn't take a lot of imagination, to use common, everyday tools and items, as deadly weapons. Banning guns, won't take away the desire or intent to commit violent crimes. Banning guns, just makes it easier and safer for criminals to victimize others.

It may take a generation or two, to get back to normal, but kids that grow up, learning what guns are, what they can do, and that everybody has one. That knowledge will deter them from even being tempted of committing violent crimes. They learn that they aren't likely to survive long enough to benefit from it. The criminals we currently have, will be either dead, or rehabilitated, after getting shot a couple times.

tmiddles wrote:
So having and enforcing a law that requires:
1 - Wearing Seat belts
2 - Driving sober
3 - Obeying a speed limit

Has no impact whatsoever on the actual behavior on the road?

tmiddles wrote: There are two parts to ________ control: Who should have the power to decide, and what would you like them to do when they make their decision.

It's legitimate in my view for our democracy to delineate the right to bear arms as we do freedom of speech and our other personal liberties. To consider it's purpose and utility in court as well as at the ballot box.

HarveyH55 wrote:
You don't need a gun to rob or murder another human being.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
There are two parts to ________ control:

Why you have a problem saying 'gun control' is beyond me.

Into the Night wrote:
You don't get to declare what weapons someone may carry or use. Neither does the federal government (legally). Neither does a State (legally).

IBdaMann wrote:It is illegal to rob a bank. Banks still get robbed. It is illegal to exceed the speed limit. The speed limit is exceeded in every State every minute of every day.

IBdaMann wrote:The Bill of Rights exists specifically to prevent what you advocate, i.e. the infringement of the rights of the minority at the hands of the majority,...

tmiddles wrote: So what guns should be legal?

tmiddles wrote: As he stairs lovingly at the portrait of Timothy McVey on his wall. Who, ITN will remind you, was NOT a terrorist.

tmiddles wrote: So it seems your argument is that it's not possible to prevent people from doing something they want to do?

tmiddles wrote:So instead of just kicking back and asking questions how about you volunteer how you think society should work to prevent something objectionable?

tmiddles wrote: You mentioned Bank Robbery. Are we really helpless to prevent that?

HarveyH55 wrote:
Gun control, is only being able to hit your intended target, and nobody else... The only legislation needed, is to insist on every gun owner to get out and practice often. Make sure everyone in the in the house, can safely handle firearms, and hit the intended target, even children. It's important to start young, so they clearly understand that guns aren't toys. All American should be encouraged to own at least one gun. We would have a lot less violent crime, eventually... It would make the job of police officers much easier and safer, less stressful. Criminals would know that every potential victim, is probably armed, and can hit what they point at. Big deterrent, chance of dying over pocket change really isn't worth the risk. Police officers won't have to be quite so polite, since they can pretty much count on everyone being armed, and deal with every call accordingly.

You don't need a gun to rob or murder another human being. Other tools of the violent criminal trade, can do a lot more damage, and much more deadly. Getting shot, isn't the worst thing that can happen to you, most people survive, and fully recover. Getting stabbed or cut, is nasty, and a longer recovery, worse if it gets infected. Getting clubbed or beaten, usually leaves injuries you have to deal with, the rest of your life. Doesn't take a lot of imagination, to use common, everyday tools and items, as deadly weapons. Banning guns, won't take away the desire or intent to commit violent crimes. Banning guns, just makes it easier and safer for criminals to victimize others.

It may take a generation or two, to get back to normal, but kids that grow up, learning what guns are, what they can do, and that everybody has one. That knowledge will deter them from even being tempted of committing violent crimes. They learn that they aren't likely to survive long enough to benefit from it. The criminals we currently have, will be either dead, or rehabilitated, after getting shot a couple times.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: So what guns should be legal?

All of them.

IBdaMann wrote:...we should instead focus on defining what actions are incongruent with an orderly, peaceful society, ...

IBdaMann wrote:So who convinced you that McVeigh was somehow a terrorist? Were you gullible at the time .....

IBdaMann wrote:If you legislate away physical security then you destroy the orderly society.

IBdaMann wrote:Have you noticed that all mass shootings occur in defenselessness zones? Are you confused at that stunning coincidence?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: You mentioned Bank Robbery. Are we really helpless to prevent that?

Those banks with sufficient physical security can prevent it.

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
You don't need a gun to rob or murder another human being.

So what guns should be legal? (ITN seems to think all weapons are already legal everywhere)

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
There are two parts to ________ control:

Why you have a problem saying 'gun control' is beyond me.

I meant that my statement applied to control on anything. Taking away another human being freedom to ______. Sometimes I wonder where you grew up and if English if your first language ITN.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You don't get to declare what weapons someone may carry or use. Neither does the federal government (legally). Neither does a State (legally).

As he stairs lovingly at the portrait of Timothy McVey on his wall. Who, ITN will remind you, was NOT a terrorist.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:It is illegal to rob a bank. Banks still get robbed. It is illegal to exceed the speed limit. The speed limit is exceeded in every State every minute of every day.

So it seems your argument is that it's not possible to prevent people from doing something they want to do?
Mantra 16c...

tmiddles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:The Bill of Rights exists specifically to prevent what you advocate, i.e. the infringement of the rights of the minority at the hands of the majority,...

So instead of just kicking back and asking questions how about you volunteer how you think society should work to prevent something objectionable? You mentioned Bank Robbery. Are we really helpless to prevent that?

tmiddles wrote:
Of course I know you don't think we are but let's hear your version of how Bank Robbery should be prevented.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: So what guns should be legal?

All of them.

So you disagree with the NRA that automatic weapons should be illegal?

tmiddles wrote:
How about something like an RPG.

tmiddles wrote:
Should this be legal and what legitimate reason is there for owning one?

tmiddles wrote:

And a tank, artillery, ect.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:...we should instead focus on defining what actions are incongruent with an orderly, peaceful society, ...

We do. You said that as though they were mutually exclusive in our laws. Machine guns are illegal and so is murder.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:So who convinced you that McVeigh was somehow a terrorist? Were you gullible at the time .....

Why is it important to you guys that McVeigh NOT be considered a terrorist? I don't actually have a complicated definition. A terrorist commits crimes with the goal of terrorizing others. Your efforts to somehow salvage that pig's reputation are beyond disturbing.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:If you legislate away physical security then you destroy the orderly society.

It is not legislating something into nonexistence to delegate it.

tmiddles wrote:
As with medicine, fire, and other areas surrounding human health our society, wisely in my opinion, delegates and restricts those functions to a highly trained and qualified class of professionals.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:Have you noticed that all mass shootings occur in defenselessness zones? Are you confused at that stunning coincidence?

Defenseless zones? You mean where the population is stripped of the right to have guns?

tmiddles wrote:
Like England, Europe:
link

tmiddles wrote:
I've notice that all mass shootings are done with legal weapons actually. The Vegas shooter used a bump stock not a real machine gun (why? cuz they are illegal and he couldn't get one, and that guy had money).

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: You mentioned Bank Robbery. Are we really helpless to prevent that?

Those banks with sufficient physical security can prevent it.

Sounds like you a blaming the victim.

tmiddles wrote:
If you find you are out gunned it's your fault for not having bigger guns?

tmiddles wrote:
I'm sure you've seen this but it's just incredible. I remember watching it live. Still blows my mind. So much like the downtown LA scene in HEAT:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-E4_wDQFky0

tmiddles wrote:
And yeah they had a real machine gun. AK47

tmiddles wrote:
How'd they get the guns?
vpc.org
Multiple fully automatic assault rifles including an AK-47 type
"The weapons were originally bought at a gun show and then illegally resold to Matasareanu and Phillips."

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:... NRA that automatic weapons should be illegal?

The NRA never made any such statement.