Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

onehandle

(51,122 posts)
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 03:58 PM Apr 2013

The terrorists fired over 200 rounds in last night's gun battle with police.

Last edited Fri Apr 19, 2013, 06:19 PM - Edit history (2)

It will be very interesting to hear about the capacity of their clips.

Re: The Senate Vote Of Shame.

On edit: Reported on MSNBC.

Here's a link:

The Boston Marathon bombing suspect was on the run Friday evening as officials said he and his brother exchanged 200 rounds with police during a stunning firefight early in the morning and left seven homemade explosives behind.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/19/17823265-200-rounds-details-of-firefight-emerge-as-manhunt-focuses-on-one-suspect?lite

117 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The terrorists fired over 200 rounds in last night's gun battle with police. (Original Post) onehandle Apr 2013 OP
O M G! avaistheone1 Apr 2013 #1
There should be a law against owning bombs & throwing them at police Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #2
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #3
How? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #7
We can't keep hardcore drugs and weapons out of federal prisons FFS... pipoman Apr 2013 #18
Good -- and sad -- point n/t Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #22
because they don't want to BainsBane Apr 2013 #43
The point is... pipoman Apr 2013 #97
What is your point? BainsBane Apr 2013 #98
You don't know what you are talking about.. pipoman Apr 2013 #99
Good point. theaocp Apr 2013 #63
WHAT ABOUT DUIS!!?//!1!11!1!1! morningfog Apr 2013 #78
Really? premium Apr 2013 #12
We have a right to bare bombs!!!!!!! Heather MC Apr 2013 #9
Straw-man alert discntnt_irny_srcsm Apr 2013 #11
Bear bombs vs bare bums Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #49
Can your fourth grade teacher take a joke? Heather MC Apr 2013 #51
Not an ungrammatical one, no. n/t Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #53
Ioun care! Heather MC Apr 2013 #55
I think you mean "fourth" grade teacher Coyotl Apr 2013 #92
pert of da joke Heather MC Apr 2013 #93
I no Coyotl Apr 2013 #105
o'tay! Heather MC Apr 2013 #106
You can bare arms... ljm2002 Apr 2013 #54
You're right!!! n/t Yo_Mama Apr 2013 #56
Now that we've got that, maybe we should take the next sensible step EOTE Apr 2013 #15
The elder, the dead one, has a domestic violence conviction Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #26
And that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion. EOTE Apr 2013 #27
Yeah, just like people have a hard time getting hardcore drugs. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #28
And how many innocent bystanders has heroin killed last year? EOTE Apr 2013 #29
People don't have a right to heroin. People do have a right to self-defense. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #31
And self defense means 100 round mags? Perhaps 1000? The right to own aircraft carriers? EOTE Apr 2013 #32
The legal standard is common-use personal arms Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #41
source? NoMoreWarNow Apr 2013 #52
Gun nuts don't provide sources. EOTE Apr 2013 #101
And "common use" includes high capacity magazines? EOTE Apr 2013 #70
Standard issue is 30 rounds. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #79
That's insane. As are 100 round magazines. EOTE Apr 2013 #80
Law is not based on your personal phobias and willful ignorance. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #86
Ahhh, so my opposition to unlimited capacity magazines is ignorance and a phobia? EOTE Apr 2013 #87
If mass-killing were its only purpose police wouldn't carry them for lone-criminal encounters. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #90
Non law enforcement don't need to get involved in massive shoot outs. EOTE Apr 2013 #91
Who said get involved? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #94
So again you propose we be able to own attack helicopters. EOTE Apr 2013 #95
A reasonable limit would be what professionals and hobbyists find to be most practical. Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #96
You live in a fantasy world. EOTE Apr 2013 #100
You conjure non-existent scenario after non-existent scenario Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2013 #102
Non-existent scenarios? Like the one where you need to take on a dozen terrorists? EOTE Apr 2013 #103
This message was self-deleted by its author clffrdjk Apr 2013 #114
Um, no. premium Apr 2013 #33
It's not my fault if the gun nuts in this country make the only possible actions watered down ones. EOTE Apr 2013 #35
Would you also extend this to LE personnel? If not, why? oneshooter Apr 2013 #38
Should law enforcement be able to purchase guns without a background check? No. EOTE Apr 2013 #71
So he bought it off of John Doe on street and with no doc03 Apr 2013 #39
That's illegal in Massachusetts. Straw Man Apr 2013 #89
So he bought a gun illegally? Recursion Apr 2013 #109
My wife was up at last night and heard the booms. R. Daneel Olivaw Apr 2013 #20
On the video - you can hear lots of gun shots - and "cracks" that were the explosions jpak Apr 2013 #37
In before some gunhead starts talking about "magazines" vs. "clips". Marr Apr 2013 #4
wonder how many ball bearings were in the pressure cookers Dreamer Tatum Apr 2013 #5
Fuck the NRA n/t malaise Apr 2013 #6
Impossible, I saw a fellow DUer say no guns were involved. Rex Apr 2013 #8
No guns involved? LOL! sandmann Apr 2013 #40
For your reading pleasure. Rex Apr 2013 #48
Not a fellow DUer, it seems. Robb Apr 2013 #72
NO FUCKN WAY! Rex Apr 2013 #73
holee shit.. frylock Apr 2013 #77
An eye witness to the shooting last night claimed they were using handguns jpak Apr 2013 #10
One of those was from the MIT officer that was shot and killed, premium Apr 2013 #14
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #23
I agree to a point, premium Apr 2013 #25
And where and how they acquired all that firepower. Legally or illegally... nt riderinthestorm Apr 2013 #13
And when did they acquire it? They may have been stockpiling for some time. nt BootinUp Apr 2013 #16
When I lived in Cambridge 35 years ago the mafia had to share their guns olddots Apr 2013 #17
Source? kudzu22 Apr 2013 #19
News conference just finished by officials stated as such. Ikonoklast Apr 2013 #76
Shit!!!! that's a lot of fire power bigdarryl Apr 2013 #21
Do you have a link? nt. premium Apr 2013 #24
This doesn't sound right...The police exchanged 200 rounds... HipChick Apr 2013 #30
Exchanged over 200 rounds OldHippieChick Apr 2013 #34
Well turns out Tamarlan was barred from buying and owning guns! riderinthestorm Apr 2013 #36
Tamerlan could have bought a gun from you me or anyone else doc03 Apr 2013 #42
Damage rifle barrels sarisataka Apr 2013 #45
That was the talking point from the NRA at the time when doc03 Apr 2013 #46
Damn them gun nuts at the National Academy of Sciences sarisataka Apr 2013 #47
Times have changed - haven't they jpak Apr 2013 #58
The three criteria recommended sarisataka Apr 2013 #60
Three bodies on Boylston jpak Apr 2013 #61
No - they claimed taggants "degraded ballistic performance". jpak Apr 2013 #57
Nope sarisataka Apr 2013 #59
Yeah - we're so much safer thanks to the fucking NRA jpak Apr 2013 #64
Strange position sarisataka Apr 2013 #67
Let's see - dumb hobby vs. public safety and security? jpak Apr 2013 #68
Think it through sarisataka Apr 2013 #69
The police can use untagged ammo - and I see no evidence that taggants are a safety issue jpak Apr 2013 #74
Police use commercial ammo sarisataka Apr 2013 #75
Give me a break a tagget isn't going to make a gun explode. The only way doc03 Apr 2013 #82
You were close sarisataka Apr 2013 #88
Yes affect acuracy, I remember that was another of many arguments the doc03 Apr 2013 #81
Not in Massachusetts. Straw Man Apr 2013 #83
Gotta a link? CokeMachine Apr 2013 #44
Hmm. It's my understanding that cliffordu Apr 2013 #50
That's what I've seen everywhere Travelman Apr 2013 #65
Right. Unless these two morons had full auto assault weapons. I would doubt that. cliffordu Apr 2013 #66
There is no such thing as a full-auto assault weapon. Cops *may* have full auto weapons Recursion Apr 2013 #104
Thats funny. I shot a full-auto assault weapon in the Army. cliffordu Apr 2013 #110
No, you did not. You fired a full auto assault rifle. Here's a Venn diagram Recursion Apr 2013 #111
Ah. So you are nitpicking the weapon/rifle thingy there. cliffordu Apr 2013 #112
I'm not nit-picking a God d****d thing. This is central to the ****ing law. Recursion Apr 2013 #115
Fabulous. cliffordu Apr 2013 #116
This message was self-deleted by its author Recursion Apr 2013 #117
Bingo. Straw Man Apr 2013 #84
Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #62
Um ... Straw Man Apr 2013 #85
And how many of those rounds came from the cops? B2G Apr 2013 #107
Didn't do them a lot of good. Zax2me Apr 2013 #108
The terrorists didn't fire over 200 rounds, premium Apr 2013 #113

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #2)

BainsBane

(53,003 posts)
98. What is your point?
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 11:13 PM
Apr 2013

Now you want bombs too?

The point is they don't keep drugs out of prisons because they don't want to, the same reason the NRA and the rest of the gun lobby wants criminals to have ready access to guns--profit.

 

pipoman

(16,038 posts)
99. You don't know what you are talking about..
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 11:37 PM
Apr 2013

I have spent time representing inmates in at least 10 prisons, both state and federal...including Florence ADX..try taking a bit of heroin...hell a pack of cigarettes in..then come back and tell me "they don't want to" keep contraband out of the prison..

 

Heather MC

(8,084 posts)
9. We have a right to bare bombs!!!!!!!
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:11 PM
Apr 2013

It is un-american to want to restrict us hardworking Americans from the right to toss our bombs anywhere we want!


Yo_Mama

(8,303 posts)
49. Bear bombs vs bare bums
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:42 PM
Apr 2013

Sorry, my fourth-grade teacher just rolled over in her bed. Let her sleep peacefully, I beg of you.

Bear, when used as a verb, has nothing to do with furry animals. When used as a verb it can mean to endure or carry. Women bear children (give birth to), we bear insults, we bear arms.

In English, "bare" is just an adjective meaning unclothed, unadorned, unconcealed, in plain sight. It's not a verb.

 

Heather MC

(8,084 posts)
51. Can your fourth grade teacher take a joke?
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:46 PM
Apr 2013

Why does everything have to be so perfect for some of you people.

Your forth grade teacher ain't grading my post, who cares!

ljm2002

(10,751 posts)
54. You can bare arms...
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:53 PM
Apr 2013

...by rolling up your sleeves.

"bare" is a verb as well as an adjective.

Not to say it wasn't misused, but still, if you're going to give English lessons...

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
15. Now that we've got that, maybe we should take the next sensible step
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:18 PM
Apr 2013

and ensure that ridiculous capacity magazines are banned. If you need more than a 10 round magazine for anything, you have no place in civil society.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
26. The elder, the dead one, has a domestic violence conviction
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:48 PM
Apr 2013

The law says he's not allowed to own a gun, period.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
27. And that has absolutely NOTHING to do with this discussion.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:51 PM
Apr 2013

If high capacity magazines were banned, he'd have a much harder time obtaining them. If there were no gun show loophole, he wouldn't be able to obtain horrific weapons easily. These are common sense measures that are only being opposed by people who have an utter lack of common sense.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
28. Yeah, just like people have a hard time getting hardcore drugs.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:52 PM
Apr 2013

As has been noted up-thread, you can even get drugs in federal prison.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
29. And how many innocent bystanders has heroin killed last year?
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:55 PM
Apr 2013

Again, a ridiculously stupid comparison. And I'm guessing because people can get access to heroin anyway, we should have heroin shows where anybody can buy as much heroin as they want with no background checks. You gun nuts would be utterly hilarious if you weren't so damned dangerous.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
31. People don't have a right to heroin. People do have a right to self-defense.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:56 PM
Apr 2013

Learn to live with facts.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
32. And self defense means 100 round mags? Perhaps 1000? The right to own aircraft carriers?
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:59 PM
Apr 2013

Attack helicopters? Nope, people don't have the right to something grown in the ground, but they do have the right to flood the streets with unlimited arms which put us dead last amongst first world countries in terms of gun violence. Perhaps it's insane thinking like that of you and the rest of the gun nuts that has made this country such a scary place to live?

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
41. The legal standard is common-use personal arms
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:13 PM
Apr 2013

Settled law. Get used to it.

And just for the sake of conversation -- when Holmes used a 100-round magazine it jammed. When Loughner used an extended magazine it jammed. The police do not use them because they are not reliable.

Perhaps it's insane thinking like that of you and the rest of the gun nuts that has made this country such a scary place to live?


You're the only one who can relieve yourself of your irrational fears. There is no bogeyman out to get you.
 

NoMoreWarNow

(1,259 posts)
52. source?
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:48 PM
Apr 2013

because the common wisdom is that Loughner only was stopped when he had to change magazines. The story on Holmes is less clear. But certainly having to change clips more often slows them down, and in a mass killing situation, every second counts.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
101. Gun nuts don't provide sources.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:27 AM
Apr 2013

They bellow out their massive amounts of bullshit authoritatively and expect everyone else to swallow it whole. Perhaps it helps them sleep at night. Perhaps it helps to silence what little conscience they have remaining. Regardless, telling the truth is absolutely off limits.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
70. And "common use" includes high capacity magazines?
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 06:34 PM
Apr 2013

That's really fucking stupid. There's no decent person on earth who has a need for a high capacity magazine, they're only used for bad things. If "common use" includes shit like that, the term is meaningless. I would never turn to a gun nut for anything approaching common sense. Those evil fucks were still able to kill a fuck load of people in spite of their jams, weren't they? Christ, do the gun nuts have ANY conscience whatsoever?

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
80. That's insane. As are 100 round magazines.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:04 PM
Apr 2013

There is nothing good that a person can do that involves high capacity magazines. Getting rid of high capacity magazines is a no brainer. Unfortunately, gun nuts take that as a challenge.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
87. Ahhh, so my opposition to unlimited capacity magazines is ignorance and a phobia?
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:38 PM
Apr 2013

My opposition to a device whose SOLE practical purpose is mass killings is a phobia. I'd say that someone who supports something like that has a good deal more than a phobia. A person who'd support such a thing has a deep, disturbing sickness.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
90. If mass-killing were its only purpose police wouldn't carry them for lone-criminal encounters.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 10:10 PM
Apr 2013

"unlimited capacity"? I guess we'll add deceitful to phobic and ignorant.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
91. Non law enforcement don't need to get involved in massive shoot outs.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 10:16 PM
Apr 2013

There's no reason that average people should have access to the same gear that SWAT teams use. And just what is deceitful about "unlimited capacity"?

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
94. Who said get involved?
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 10:27 PM
Apr 2013

Please show us the roving semi-auto rifle owners going out and insinuating themselves into active gun fights and killing massive amounts of citizens. You might want to re-read the Constitution. There's no, "what somebody else deems reasonable" clause. No other right is subject to such nonsensical fictions.

And just what is deceitful about "unlimited capacity"?


The only unlimited capacity magazine in existence is when you hold your fingers in an "L" and go "Pyoo! Pyoo! Pyoo!" Sadly, the phobia of your sorts has grown to such a fevered pitch school children are having their lives up-ended over this very act.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
95. So again you propose we be able to own attack helicopters.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 10:33 PM
Apr 2013

Because terrorists could certainly have those. Christ, what don't you understand about reasonable limits? "Unlimited capacity" is an appropriate term because there is literally no limit to what manufacturers are allowed to create in most states. You are aware that words mean things, right? Just as no citizen should expect to ever have to face off against an attack helicopter or an aircraft carrier, no citizen should ever expect to have to take on numerous baddies with numerous assault weapons. Regardless, THAT is what our police force is for. In the real world, citizens don't go all out John McClane style taking out a dozen terrorists or criminals with assault weapons. I know things are very different in the mind of a gun nut, but I assure you the real world is not like that.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
96. A reasonable limit would be what professionals and hobbyists find to be most practical.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 10:59 PM
Apr 2013

30-round magazines are standard issue and most popular.

no citizen should ever expect to have to take on numerous baddies with numerous assault weapons.


No one expects to get into a serious car accident, either. And, again, police carry semi-automatic rifles not because they are assaulting fortified positions but because in the course of their duties they predominantly encounter singular criminals. Their professional experience has presumably taught them that a semi-automatic rifle is best for gaining the tactical advantage. They also carry 30-round clips to also confront singular criminals -- not for mass-killing -- and not one of them ever complained of having too much ammunition at the end of the encounter.

Regardless, THAT is what our police force is for.


More fictions.

The Constitution was well-aware that constabulary agencies existed in its day and yet the right to personal self defense was codified. Nowhere does it presume citizens are expected to wait passively for the police that entire premise was shot down in both the Heller and the McDonald decisions.

In the real world, citizens don't go all out John McClane style taking out a dozen terrorists or criminals with assault weapons.


You're right. They don't. So why bother making up such a ridiculous statement? Lying only makes you look like a liar.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
100. You live in a fantasy world.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:22 AM
Apr 2013

You and all the rest of the gun nuts.

What you are utterly able to understand is that by your standard, NOTHING is off limits. When police have access to armed drones, should we have those as well? Nutters like you are dangerous to society. Do you have any idea as to what mutually assured destruction is? When will it stop? You haven't addressed this issue at all. What is to prevent a terrorist from gunning down your family with an attack helicopter? NOTHING. So that means we should have those as well? YOU are the liar. I've said absolutely nada that's incorrect. You are taking things to utterly ludicrous extremes.

Here's a question that I'm fairly sure I won't get an answer to. Do you support Americans' right to own fully automatics? If so, why? I'm guessing you're not going to even attempt to answer this, but I look forward to it anyway. You have all the logic of Wayne LaPierre and his toadies. They don't give one tiny damn about the lives of innocents and children, they only care about their toys. I look forward to your answer, but I have a feeling you won't be able to.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
102. You conjure non-existent scenario after non-existent scenario
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:28 AM
Apr 2013

but you accuse me of living in a fantasy world. Let me know if you want to talk about things that actually happen. I really don't have the time to entertain every crackpot fantasy you whip up to argue about things that aren't happening.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
103. Non-existent scenarios? Like the one where you need to take on a dozen terrorists?
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:31 AM
Apr 2013

And hold off the baddies with your 100 round clips?

You are utterly hilarious. To make up the most ludicrous scenarios to justify your need for mass murder devices and then accuse ME of conjuring non-existent scenarios.

And I notice you didn't even attempt to tell me whether Americans should have the right to fully automatic weapons. Not that I expect you to as it would further expose you. But hey, you're able to sleep at night, right? I'm guessing you sleep like a baby. It's the conscience that keeps you up at night.

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #41)

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
33. Um, no.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:01 PM
Apr 2013

The mag. limit that was proposed by Sen. Feinstein would've only banned the manufacture of new ones, it would not have banned the sale of ones already in circulation.
There are hundreds of millions of those mags. in circulation, so they would have had no problem getting them.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
35. It's not my fault if the gun nuts in this country make the only possible actions watered down ones.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:03 PM
Apr 2013

I'm sure that DiFi knew that including existing hi-cap mags would be politically unfeasible. That's beside the point as what I was trying to suggest was that common sense measures such as that are fought tooth and nail by the gun nuts, even ones we have here. It's sickening.

EOTE

(13,409 posts)
71. Should law enforcement be able to purchase guns without a background check? No.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 06:39 PM
Apr 2013

Should they be able to use high capacity magazines? Probably not, but that's not really pertinent to the conversation.

doc03

(35,148 posts)
39. So he bought it off of John Doe on street and with no
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:10 PM
Apr 2013

checks. They say 40% of gun sales are private party transactions.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
89. That's illegal in Massachusetts.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:54 PM
Apr 2013
So he bought it off of John Doe on street and with no

checks.

You have to have a firearm owner's license in MA to buy a gun, even in a private sale.

jpak

(41,742 posts)
37. On the video - you can hear lots of gun shots - and "cracks" that were the explosions
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:08 PM
Apr 2013

At times, the gunfire was sustained.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
73. NO FUCKN WAY!
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 06:49 PM
Apr 2013

FINALLY!!!!

I would do a little dance...but will probably get yelled at because he was somebodies 'favorite troll'.

frylock

(34,825 posts)
77. holee shit..
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 07:36 PM
Apr 2013

good riddance. there wasn't a conservative position that authoritarian piece of shit wouldn't defend.

jpak

(41,742 posts)
10. An eye witness to the shooting last night claimed they were using handguns
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:12 PM
Apr 2013

Which would suggest they had semi-autos with lots of loaded clips.

yup

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
14. One of those was from the MIT officer that was shot and killed,
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:15 PM
Apr 2013

they took his service weapon and long gun, probably took his high capacity mags also.

Response to premium (Reply #14)

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
25. I agree to a point,
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:35 PM
Apr 2013

if a high capacity mag ban were to ever be implemented, then what's good for the citizenry is good for law enforcement.

 

olddots

(10,237 posts)
17. When I lived in Cambridge 35 years ago the mafia had to share their guns
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:20 PM
Apr 2013

Thanks NRA death merchants and libertarian tapeworms for your never ending battle against progress .

HipChick

(25,485 posts)
30. This doesn't sound right...The police exchanged 200 rounds...
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 04:55 PM
Apr 2013

Everything is begining to smell about this..

 

riderinthestorm

(23,272 posts)
36. Well turns out Tamarlan was barred from buying and owning guns!
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:06 PM
Apr 2013

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev got a green card in 2007, and became a naturalized United States citizen on Sept. 11, 2012, officials said. Tamerlan was denied citizenship after he was involved in a domestic-violence episode, his father said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/20/us/boston-marathon-bombings.html?_r=0

But his brother could....

doc03

(35,148 posts)
42. Tamerlan could have bought a gun from you me or anyone else
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:18 PM
Apr 2013

in a private sale. The explosives could also been traced but the NRA lobbied against taggets in explosives after Oklahoma City, their argument, they could damage rifle barrels.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
45. Damage rifle barrels
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:24 PM
Apr 2013

as in blow-up-in-your-face. Blinding or lethal injuries are cause for concern.

Explosives often do have taggants but only Switzerland requires it.

doc03

(35,148 posts)
46. That was the talking point from the NRA at the time when
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:31 PM
Apr 2013

they wanted to put taggets in gun powder. They claimed it could wear the rifling of course the nut jobs expanded that to blowing up I suppose. If a bullet can pass through a barrel at 3000 feet per second tight enough to cut groves in brass I hardly doubt a small tagget could harm a barrel at all. But gun nuts will beleive anything the NRA feeds them.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
47. Damn them gun nuts at the National Academy of Sciences
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:36 PM
Apr 2013
RECOMMENDATION: Detection markers in black and smokeless powders should not be implemented at the present time.

X-ray systems and dogs currently provide a strong capability for detecting bomb containers and unmarked black and smokeless powders in the scenarios considered by the committee, and most powder bombings currently take place at locations in which deployment of bomb detection systems is not practicable (see Table 1.4 in chapter 1). Therefore, the committee believes that the effectiveness of a marking program would be limited at the present time. Institution of a marking program would incur significant costs. At the current level of fewer than 10 deaths and 100 injuries per year and very few terrorist incidents, the committee believes that the benefits are not sufficient to justify such a marking program. If the threat were to increase substantially in the future and test data were available, benefits might exceed costs, and a marking program might be warranted. A marking program for black and smokeless powders would be justified only if three criteria were met: the frequency and severity of black and smokeless powder bombs were found to be high enough to justify marking; the markers first were thoroughly tested and found to be safe and effective under conditions likely to be encountered in the legal and illegal uses of the powders; and the social benefits of markers were found to outweigh the costs of their use.




http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6289

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
60. The three criteria recommended
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 06:04 PM
Apr 2013

the frequency and severity of black and smokeless powder bombs were found to be high enough to justify marking- No, gun powder based bombs are still rare

The markers first were thoroughly tested and found to be safe and effective under conditions likely to be encountered in the legal and illegal uses of the powders- Don't know if any efforts have been made

The social benefits of markers were found to outweigh the costs of their use- Yes, the cost should not be burdensome as taggants are used like copyright markers in cosmetics and other products


If they have a tested method that shows their use in powder is safe, I say let's do it

jpak

(41,742 posts)
61. Three bodies on Boylston
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 06:14 PM
Apr 2013

tag the powder

now

No more NRA interference.

No more NRA obfuscating

Do it.

Yup

jpak

(41,742 posts)
57. No - they claimed taggants "degraded ballistic performance".
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:55 PM
Apr 2013

Gun nuts can't handle a slight drop in bullet velocity.

try again

yup

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
59. Nope
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:59 PM
Apr 2013
Perhaps the most effective opposition to taggants has come from the NRA, which argues that their use in gunpowder would raise serious safety issues for its 3 million members. For example, if the ratio of tags to gunpowder varies, so would the explosive punch of bullets. "Some rounds might be so powerful they could blow up in the gun," says NRA spokesman Chip Walker. The organization is not opposed to tagging high explosives, like dynamite and plastic, or agricultural chemicals, such as ammonium nitrate.
http://www.businessweek.com/stories/1996-08-11/an-end-to-anonymous-bombs
The NAS agreed

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
67. Strange position
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 06:22 PM
Apr 2013

to be against a safety issue because of the group that supports it. I would be happy if the KKK filed a lawsuit for cleaner drinking water- doesn't mean I still would stop considering them dispicable

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
69. Think it through
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 06:29 PM
Apr 2013

the police use the same powder in their guns. Would a 1% chance of the gun exploding be acceptable? .23%? 3.14? each and ever time an officer pulls the trigger

jpak

(41,742 posts)
74. The police can use untagged ammo - and I see no evidence that taggants are a safety issue
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 06:53 PM
Apr 2013

30,000 people are killed with untagged gunpowder each year.

And your point is?

Think it through...

yup

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
75. Police use commercial ammo
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 06:55 PM
Apr 2013

and how exactly would taggants solve shootings?? They tell you what lot of powder was used...

doc03

(35,148 posts)
82. Give me a break a tagget isn't going to make a gun explode. The only way
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:25 PM
Apr 2013

a gun would blow up is if there was an obstruction in the barrel or an exssesive powder charge or a cheap ass gun. Like I said before a bullet passes through a barrel at 3000 feet per second
and it is so tight a fit that groves are cut in the metal jacket of the bullet. A tiny little marker in the powder is not going to make a barrel explode or wear it out either.

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
88. You were close
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:40 PM
Apr 2013

on excessive powder charge. Testing indicated the taggants were affecting the burn rates in an unpredictable fashion. Most of the time it was not a significant change but in some cases it was increasing pressure by about 20% IIRC.

That increase puts the pressure right at, or just above test level for most barrels. Not a good situation...




I have not followed developments of the technology. If a marker method can be used that would keep pressure spikes within reasonable limits there is no reason to not use it.

doc03

(35,148 posts)
81. Yes affect acuracy, I remember that was another of many arguments the
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:12 PM
Apr 2013

NRA put up to protect terroists bombs. May wear out barrel, cost too much, only 10 people killed not cost effective yada yada yada Same bullshit we got on the gun bill.

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
83. Not in Massachusetts.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:25 PM
Apr 2013

Last edited Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:55 PM - Edit history (1)

Tamerlan could have bought a gun from you me or anyone else

in a private sale.

Private sales in MA require a firearms license, and interstate sales without going through an FFL are against Federal law.
 

CokeMachine

(1,018 posts)
44. Gotta a link?
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 05:23 PM
Apr 2013

I searched but could only find 25 rounds were fired by the perps. Maybe the 200 included what the LEOs fired as well -- they have hi-cap mags.

Thanks

Travelman

(708 posts)
65. That's what I've seen everywhere
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 06:16 PM
Apr 2013

And given that there were a dozen or more cops involved in this, 200 rounds can get spent very quickly indeed.

cliffordu

(30,994 posts)
66. Right. Unless these two morons had full auto assault weapons. I would doubt that.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 06:19 PM
Apr 2013

The cops, however, do.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
104. There is no such thing as a full-auto assault weapon. Cops *may* have full auto weapons
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 08:36 AM
Apr 2013

but lots of SWAT teams stick with semi-auto.

It's virtually guaranteed these two did not have fully automatic weapons unless they stole them from a cop.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
111. No, you did not. You fired a full auto assault rifle. Here's a Venn diagram
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 11:11 AM
Apr 2013

Here's a Venn diagram:



Semi-automatics are legal for civilians to own. Fully automatics have been (for all practical purposes) illegal for civilians to own for 80 years. Assault weapons are a subclass of semi-automatics. In the army, you fired an assault rifle, which is a type of fully-automatic weapon.

(Incidentally, you "shoot" a target but "fire" a weapon.)

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
115. I'm not nit-picking a God d****d thing. This is central to the ****ing law.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 11:44 AM
Apr 2013

I am telling you what the words you are using actually mean.

Response to cliffordu (Reply #116)

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
84. Bingo.
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:27 PM
Apr 2013

We have a winner.

There were 200 rounds fired altogether.

Yup. That's what "exchanged" means, folks.

Response to onehandle (Original post)

Straw Man

(6,613 posts)
85. Um ...
Fri Apr 19, 2013, 09:28 PM
Apr 2013
The Boston Marathon bombing suspect was on the run Friday evening as officials said he and his brother exchanged 200 rounds with police during a stunning firefight early in the morning and left seven homemade explosives behind.

That's how many total shots were fired in the exchange of gunfire. Note the keyword.
 

Zax2me

(2,515 posts)
108. Didn't do them a lot of good.
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 10:49 AM
Apr 2013

One dead.
One in jail.
There won't be a next time for them but whatever they used the word fail applies.

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
113. The terrorists didn't fire over 200 rounds,
Sat Apr 20, 2013, 11:24 AM
Apr 2013

the over 200 rounds were police and terrorists combined with the police firing the majority of them.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The terrorists fired over...