But I quote her singing of it. Oh well...Actually, that one was written by Dylan. Good song.
But I quote her singing of it. Oh well...Actually, that one was written by Dylan. Good song.
You missed my point almost entirely and your post makes my point even stronger. I am not talking turkey hunting but tactical combat shooting with buckshot. My point was that it would be extremely foolish and possibly negligent (in a police type shooting) to fire buckshot at a man sized target beyond 15 yards because it will most likely wind up that some of the pellets miss the target beyond that range. Remember we are not in the woods turkey hunting but are more likely in an urban or suburban or even rural setting where those fly by pellets may hit someone else. Every time an officer fires his weapon he is responsible for each bullet he has fired, or in the case of 00 buckshot for each pellet.I've rolled Turkeys at 15 yards further out with a whole lot less. A real live living breathing moving target, not a hypothetical paper target.
So if only one piece of buckshot hits the target at 25 yards, there is a large number of pellets (I think 8 if I recall correctly) that have not hit the target and have the potential to hit something or someone else. No at 25 yards, it is not a wise, prudent or good move to use buckshot for police type combat under most circumstances. It would be much wiser at that range to use your pistol, a carbine, a sub-gun, a 12 gauge firing rifled slugs, or a rifle and; of those choices it would be wisest to use a shotgun with slugs, a sub-gun (on single round mode), a carbine of suitable caliber or, a rifle (and the rifle may be too much in some urban/suburban/rural situations). Would you really rather chance 8 pellets going astray than one single round? This is something an officer (and his or her department) MUST consider.With your example even if only one piece of buckshot hits at 25+ yards, its still a far cry better than real life police shooting at such ranges with a handgun.
Yeah, that's what it said, and I'm sure that's what the police said. I'd be really interested to see how many of the people from whom the money was seized were actually convicted, though.Says in the article the rifles were purchased with siezed drug money.
Would you be interested to see just out of curiosity or, is there some point you are trying to make? Administrative forfeiture proceedings do not necessarily require a conviction for the money to legally become forfeit to the G.I'd be really interested to see how many of the people from whom the money was seized were actually convicted, though.
So all that 'due process' nonsense doesn't apply to possessions?Administrative forfeiture proceedings do not necessarily require a conviction for the money to legally become forfeit to the G.
Garands? Those long, heavy things, firing .30-06 rounds out of 8-round en-bloc chargers? Among other things, what about lights, scopes, lasers, etc?
The St. Louis Police Department is upping the ante on criminals, getting rid of its shotguns, replacing them with 9 millimeter semi automatic rifles.
Didn't notice that before. That's a good one. Must be the word "semi-automatic" that makes reporters think this new carbine is especially deadly.upping the ante on criminals
I assume you mean the new-fangled sights I spoke of. The thing is, those are useful for acquiring and aiming at your target, especially if the cop is not as good a shot as Sergeant York. Yes, I know, he used a bolt-action. Anyhoo, one might also ask why patrol cars need "crap" like an unneccesarily-long rifle, with unneccesarily-long cartridges, unneccesary over-penetration (I would guess) and an unneccesarily-limited capacity. All that and at the range a thirty-ought really becomes worthwhile, it's not so easy to see or aim at the target because it's not so easy to mount a scope on the rifle.What do they need that crap for? They aren't going to the mall.
The 400 rifles and laser scopes cost more than a half million dollars, but, in a form of poetic justice, the money was seized from drug dealers!
I assume you mean the new-fangled sights I spoke of. The thing is, those are useful for acquiring and aiming at your target, especially if the cop is not as good a shot as Sergeant York. .
Anyhoo, one might also ask why patrol cars need "crap" like an unneccesarily-long rifle, with unneccesarily-long cartridges, unneccesary over-penetration (I would guess) and an unneccesarily-limited capacity.
All that and at the range a thirty-ought really becomes worthwhile, it's not so easy to see or aim at the target because it's not so easy to mount a scope on the rifle.