c13

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Download entity persistence to fix it:

And that's your right to do that. No one is saying you have to have a gun. All that I am requesting is that my natural right to self preservation remains in tact. Many people have had training in how to handle firearms, be it private courses, state mandated concealed carry classes before carrying, law enforcement or military. Every single one of the millions that carry in their every day life, including outside of work, care about the personal safety of themselves and their loved ones, and many would be willing to put themselves in between you and some one else intending to harm you. So it was misinformation and fear every time California passes strict new gun laws. It's misinformation and fear that for a while, it was illegal to step outside of your home with a firearm in Chicago unless it was disassembled (something all the gangbangers followed). It's misinformation and fear that an Assault Weapons Ban happened in the past (that accomplished nothing by the way) on a national level. The NRA has 4.5 million people that are members of it. That's one of the top 3 influential lobby groups in Washington DC, and it's certainly more popular than any gun control organization. People join every time a political pundit who has armed security tells them that they are more deserving of protection than them because they can use tax dollars to afford it. Right. The founding fathers, who just fought a tyrannical government, in militias made of locals using their own guns, didn't intend for people to have guns. The 2nd Amendment is made up of things called clauses. These separate different points inside a sentence. The first clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," calls for a militia, a military force that is raised from the eligible members of a civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency, to be a requirement to maintain a free state. During this time period, the government was broke. Citizens would have to provide their own arms for this militia, which, at the time, tended to be the same as the military. A musket. The citizens were on equal footing, and it was needed so that they could support the military in times of war in order to maintain the security of the free state. The second part, " the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," clearly states that the people, not the militia, not the army, not the government, have a right to keep and bear arms, as in weapons and ammunition typical to the average service member. They aren't talking about .22 caliber pistols, they aren't talking about nukes, they are talking specifically about equipment similar to what the troops at the time have.

It takes 15 minutes for them to do that. Either some one gets flagged as meeting one of the dis-qualifiers through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System or they don't. The FBI does not have the manpower, funding or time to launch an investigation into every purchase. There's more ways for people to kill themselves than just a firearm. Countries like Japan have much higher suicide rates, and firearms are virtually non-existent there. The same study you cite over suicides also shows that there is no discernible pattern when it comes to homicide. http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2015/apr/27/van-wanggaard/no-evidence-waiting-period-handgun-purchases-reduc/ You're going to argumentum ad absurdem. Just because people are allowed to carry a gun doesn't mean that they are going to. I've lived in open carry states all my life. I worked at a gun store for a year. Maybe one out of 200 people that came in openly carried a firearm, and I have never seen some one open carry a long gun of any type. Out in public, I can't remember ever seeing more than 2 people open carrying. But you remind me of a good point. There is an old saying, that "God created man, but Samuel Colt made them equal." The fact is, whether gun control advocates want to admit it or not, that firearms are a great equalizer. Without firearms, a decent sized man could take on most people, especially with a weapon like a club or a knife. However, firearms give weaker members of society a fighting chance: There are literally hundreds more, all it takes is a google search of "gun self defense" or something similar. According to various studies, defensive firearms use happens on a low side, over 100,000 times a year and some higher estimates saying 2.5 million times a year. The reason why there is no specific number is because the police need to be involved for it to be documented, but many times, the crime is prevented simply by the criminal knowing that some one has a gun, which will not result in the police being called or filing a report. Additionally, violent crime has been dropping in the US for decades, and there are more guns in private citizens hands than ever before. Every single state has some sort of concealed carry permit available to people in their state, with some states not even requiring people to have a permit as long as they meet a certain age. Firearms crimes are dropping, gun ownership is increasing, and I feel confident when back home knowing there is probably some one near me with a concealed firearm.

What does a waiting period possibly prevent? Anyone determined to kill someone will just hold off on it.

Because you are more likely to be struck by lightning than die in a mass shooting, and you are then more likely to be attacked by multiple people. Police shootings have shown time and time again two things to me: How inaccurate people can be under stress (police tend to miss 80% of their shots in shooting incidents) and how many bullets people can take with no effect. Just look at this case for example. Some one hopped up on pure adrenaline takes 14 hits from a .45 caliber handgun across the torso and still continues a shootout with the lone police officer for 56 seconds. Some things to keep in mind regarding this incident: -This was only one suspect, and the officer discharged nearly all of his 39 rounds before subduing him. Another suspect, the cop likely wouldn't of survived. -The human body is an incredible thing, and can still fight despite severe trauma based purely on a will to live. Had the officer had a slower firing weapon, he would of died. -Pistols are ineffectual at stopping people. The only reason they are carried is because they can be worn on a hip. Rifles are a superior weapon, and its because of this almost all PDs in the US have some sort of patrol rifle program in place. -The officer had backup coming to support him if he didn't stop the suspect. The average citizen doesn't.

Pics of the weapons used, as well as some security camera footage: http://www.brproud.com/news/local-news/state-police-release-disturbing-photos-of-baton-rouge-shooter-at-scene Definitely odd weapon choices for the most recent major shootings. The Sig MCX used in Orlando, AK74 used in Dallas and the Tavor are much more difficult to find than an AR-15.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/guns/procon/guns.html A key problem with your argument. The majority of criminals get guns through straw purchases. That's when the criminal has some one else buy a gun for them, which, based on being in dozens of gun stores, signs all around state it is illegal to do so and the 4473 form required to purchase a firearm also states that it is a federal crime to purchase the gun for anyone but yourself. Additionally, no background check law would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings. Straw purchases for the San Bernardino terrorist attack, for example. However, many more mass shooters are capable of passing a background check, such as James Holmes, Omar Mateen, and Micah Johnson.

That depends on the state. However, the attitude presented by you and many like you is federal gun laws and null and void at a gun show.

Because I have a natural right of self preservation that I don't believe a nit wit with an armed personal security detail who has never worked a real job a single day in his/her life has a right to remove from me because some one who grew up in a culture that preaches it's cool to sling drugs and shoot people because they wear a different t-shirt than you killed another person with the same mentality. Again, automatic firearms are virtually never used in crimes in the US. The definition of an automatic weapon is defined as a firearm that, upon the trigger being held down, multiple rounds are fired until the trigger is no longer held down. I have outlined the requirements to own one to the T. 90% of murders in the US committed by a firearm are committed with a handgun of some type, a majority of the time something cheap that can be thrown into a pond by the shooter. There are maybe one or two crimes a year in the US committed by something fully automatic, and those are always purchased/altered illegally. I'm sorry I don't like people telling me I don't need my rights while simultaneously knowing nothing about them. You clearly didn't read my comment. I said fully automatic firearms are difficult to acquire in the US, in response to his comment saying that automatic weapons are easy to get. Background sales for every transfer of hands would result in asinine requirements. It would mean I couldn't hand my buddy a gun while on the range so he could shoot it too, it means some one having to leave for business for any period of time has to have a background check for his/her spouse, and it means some one can't gift a firearm to their child. If you claim that this means that people will get guns that they shouldn't have access to, they already do and there is already a law preventing this, called straw purchasing. It is a federal crime. Additionally, it is illegal to step foot inside a gun store if you meet one of the many requirements to have your 2nd amendment rights removed, let alone attempt to purchase a firearm from that establishment, but the federal government fails to prosecute the over 10,000 cases of this a year. Those people usually just purchase a gun from their gang banging homey, and that guy will still not care what the law says if universal background checks are a thing.

SERT doesn't have tahoes like that, that is just something for that clan. As far as vehicle models, you might want to send TaylorSwift a nicely worded private message.

And you don't even know that. Fully automatic firearms have been illegal to manufacture for commercial sale since 1984, and anyone who does purchase one manufactured before then (very few, since the cheapest cost $5,000) have to undergo a 6 month background investigation. Unfortunately, you're about as educated about these issues as the politicians creating the laws.

Scanner audio from the first 20 minutes: https://www.dropbox.com/s/ciuj48pqmm75oy1/Baton Rouge 840am to 859an.mp3?dl=0

Woman called the police saying her nephew is involved, requested to meet an officer at a church. Commander screamed not to go alone and ordered a perimeter setup around it. Video of shooting: 3 officers confirmed dead now, incident involved Sheriff's (I can't remember what agency) and Cyprus Police. Witness video on phone showed at least 2 shooters. Witness says it started with a perp on perp shooting that police were responding to, then shots were fired at police

Can you include a separate file with just the bearcat vehicle layouts line? I'm trying to add it to RDE's vehicle layouts line and I can't seem to get it working.

Stuff like this happens a lot. Usually the fault of the riggers in charge of rigging the chutes. Last year, the 82nd dropped an LMTV (basically a large transport truck) that failed to deploy its chutes. I heard rumors that the riggers gave a bunch of infantrymen the manuals and didn't bother supervising or checking the final job.

YES YES YES YES YES! A THOUSAND TIMES YES! Ford Expedition is Bestpedition.

When the next game update happens and you reinstall rde, don't replace the popcycle files. This will stop the police from patrolling

I think I saw one photo of an unmarked 2000-2004 impala. I've always viewed the Declasse Merit as closer to an 06 model anyways

Honestly, I find the idea of Russia smacking around North Korea absolutely hilarious.

Large caliber and high powered firearms are no easier to get a hold of today than 20 years ago. The effect of the North Hollywood Shootout was the drastic move towards patrol rifles. Not only has that move prevented loss of officer life, it has prevented a similar situation from occurring again. It has also allowed much more liberal policies on the use of long guns, which allows officers to pull them out from everything to a felony stop to an active shooter. Vehicles are the worst place to be trapped in a gun fight. The first step during a vehicle ambush is to either get out of the car and fight back or get out of the kill zone to a better spot before getting out. A vehicle would only offer protection on the street, if a fight moves away from the road, then the money spent on ballistic upgrades was useless. The fact is budgets are tight across the US. While nearly all agencies in the US now have patrol rifles in some degree, money would be much better spent on better outfitting them. Whether it is a rifle inside every car or the next step up, quality optics and flashlights for those rifles. Other much better uses of that money should are more officer firearms training, better equipment, teaching them how to fight around their cars and how to fight to get away from those cars. All of those options would be beneficial in situations besides a vehicle ambush. The sooner the threat is ended, the safer the officer is. Additionally, more agencies could authorize the wear/keeping of plate carriers either on person or at least in the car.