I really do not have the time for a lengthy discussion about the NRA and the half-truths they espouse.
These "so-called" cop killer bullets are advertised in the backs on gun magazines. I HAVE SEEN THE ADS. They do NOT refer to them as "cop killer" bullets, but DO refer to them as vest penetrating bullets. Now, what else do you think that could possibly mean???
You need to do a little more research and look at materials and study's done by someone other than the NRA. You are getting a completely one sided opinion. I have carefully studied BOTH sides of this issue and believe me, if the NRA is willing to spend 80million dollars a year to lobby in Washington - then they must definitely feel that they have something to fear.
Judy
Dear Judy,
You didn't respond in any meaningful way to what I sent you. I asked for references, not hearsay. Post references for the ads, or don't mention the point. You didn't respond to the Fact that the manufacturers of bullet resistant vests will not rate them for any bullet larger than 5.56mm, which excludes the vast majority of hunting rounds (time for hubby to give up his "cop-killing sniper" rifle). I submit the reason the NRA spends this money is that they don't want some misinformed individuals trying to ban hunting rounds to "save the children (whales, fill in the blank with whatever it is this week)."
Why must I do more research? I have given a chronology for the introduction of these weapons. I can remember them all being listed in the copy of Gun Digest I owned as a kid (1976 edition). It has taken a long time for these weapons to get negative air time (I bet you that you didn't even know they existed until the past 5-10 years ago).
You don't have the time, it seems, for anyone who doesn't think like you do. The well informed should be able to argue their point, not evade an argument. The only reason an educated individual would have for doing so is that their arguments are built on a house of card and have no substantive facts, but only an appeal to emotion, a well known and demonstrable fallacy.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Shipley
P.S.: Who do you think give the NRA its money? Other people like me who don't want someone who uses emotion to argue their point, or even more sinister, obfuscate the facts for everyone else.
Apologies to Rich, but this inDUHvidual isn't a member, so I hope I can gety some leeway on common sense (rather like Judy, herself).
These "so-called" cop killer bullets are advertised in the backs on gun magazines. I HAVE SEEN THE ADS. They do NOT refer to them as "cop killer" bullets, but DO refer to them as vest penetrating bullets. Now, what else do you think that could possibly mean???
You need to do a little more research and look at materials and study's done by someone other than the NRA. You are getting a completely one sided opinion. I have carefully studied BOTH sides of this issue and believe me, if the NRA is willing to spend 80million dollars a year to lobby in Washington - then they must definitely feel that they have something to fear.
Judy
Dear Judy,
You didn't respond in any meaningful way to what I sent you. I asked for references, not hearsay. Post references for the ads, or don't mention the point. You didn't respond to the Fact that the manufacturers of bullet resistant vests will not rate them for any bullet larger than 5.56mm, which excludes the vast majority of hunting rounds (time for hubby to give up his "cop-killing sniper" rifle). I submit the reason the NRA spends this money is that they don't want some misinformed individuals trying to ban hunting rounds to "save the children (whales, fill in the blank with whatever it is this week)."
Why must I do more research? I have given a chronology for the introduction of these weapons. I can remember them all being listed in the copy of Gun Digest I owned as a kid (1976 edition). It has taken a long time for these weapons to get negative air time (I bet you that you didn't even know they existed until the past 5-10 years ago).
You don't have the time, it seems, for anyone who doesn't think like you do. The well informed should be able to argue their point, not evade an argument. The only reason an educated individual would have for doing so is that their arguments are built on a house of card and have no substantive facts, but only an appeal to emotion, a well known and demonstrable fallacy.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Shipley
P.S.: Who do you think give the NRA its money? Other people like me who don't want someone who uses emotion to argue their point, or even more sinister, obfuscate the facts for everyone else.
Apologies to Rich, but this inDUHvidual isn't a member, so I hope I can gety some leeway on common sense (rather like Judy, herself).