[continued from previous message]   
      
   and then wait to see if they intend to kill people?  Why do police carry   
   guns if they aren't going to exercise the the GREAT POWERS that they   
   have been honored with, shouldn't take their guns away and give them   
   camera's if all they're going to do is watch and document the killers in   
   action or their aftermath.   
      
   Why does the personal security of the President and the Mayors and   
   Congress carry guns if the plan is to NOT have people carrying guns   
   protecting children and getting in between the terrorists and murderers   
   and the unarmed Children?   
      
   That policy of Protecting NANCY PELOSI with guns surrounding her but NOT   
   protecting those kids with guns is irrational...   
      
   *Democrat Policy is unsustainable, self destructive and contradicting*   
      
      
   And apparently Democrat policy is deadly for children.   
      
   >> Which has been my entire point in this.... the police tactics killed the   
   >> children, at least some of them even though some may have died due to   
   >> the close range and type of weapon the deaths were partially caused by   
   >> doing nothing to help the wounded because they considered everyone   
   >> inside to be dead already, so they had time to wait for the SWAT TEAM.   
   >> That error in judgment was the real killer.   
   >   
   > The shooter was still the killer.  The inactions of the police added to the   
   > body count, so they're both culpable.   
   >   
      
   I'm saying incompetent... strip them of the job that honored them with   
   that responsibility and let them go get jobs picking up trash or passing   
   out condoms to gays, where they belonged in the first place.   
      
   >> Like I said about Survival Rifles before, the AR-7 was good for   
   >> airplanes where weight/size was and issue, because ammo and the gun are   
   >> small and lightweight. But as a Survival Weapon the AR-15 took the   
   >> lead as an over all Survival Weapon for average people because it's   
   >> light and easy to carry and powerful enough to really be used for self   
   >> defense and hunting and you can carry a reasonable amount of ammunition   
   >> and it works despite a lot of abuse and dirt.   
   >   
   > Where did you get that all from?  Because the AR-15 was a downsize from   
   > the AR-10 and was purpose built for the Army's shoot-off competition for   
   > a new primary infantry weapon.   
      
   M-10 the .308   
      
   The M-16 went through a lot of remaking as it failed the tests and it   
   was loathed by the troops as a piece of shit for a long time.   
      
   The recent AR-15 *SURVIVAL RIFLE* is just a "semi-auto" version that   
   can't be modified to the "Mil-Spec" M-16 rifles that changed and changed   
   again and again.   
      
   You're mixing apples and oranges.  There isn't a Military version   
   (Mil-Spec) of the AR-15 that is in use that you can buy that I have   
   heard of...  But if you hear of one let me know I might like to have one...   
      
      
      
      
   >   
   >    
   >   
   >>  It also does *NOT* have a *full-auto* trigger because that wastes   
   ammunition   
   >> creates heat and wear and more moving parts or complexity/technology to   
   fail.   
   >> Wasting Ammunition in a survival situation or depending on complicated tech   
   is   
   >> NOT smart survival tactics.   
   >   
   > Survival rifle requirement considerations are irrelevant to the AR-15's   
   development history.   
      
   NOT SURE about that, the ideas of the M-16 are for soldiers to hump   
   their supplies into a place and survive with what they bring if they get   
   cut off from the main supply line...   
      
   >   
   >   
   >>> To express this mathematically, assume P(I|h) values of .5 and .66, (*)   
   then   
   >>> calculate the odds of not being incapacitated:   
   >>>   
   >>> Thus::   
   >>> One .66 shot has a 33% odds of not being incapacitated   
   >>>   
   >>> But:   
   >>> Two .5 risk shots has 25% odds of not being incapacitated,   
   >>> Three .5 risk shots has 12.5% odds of not being incapacitated.   
   >>>   
   >>> Still want to take your chances with the .308? Be my guest.   
   >>>   
   >>> -hh   
   >>>   
   >> Computers do math, so it isn't the final measure of smart.   
   >>   
   >> You have to NOT just do the math but then you have to evaluate the   
   >> numbers use and their value in the context of the question.   
   >>   
   >> The math may or may NOT be sound but your priorities are flawed   
   >> if you rely only on the math.   
   >   
   > Its not "math", but statistics, and this is just illustrating the general   
   > principle of the point:  comparing N quantity of A, to M quantity of B.   
   >   
   >   
      
   Ignoring the Quantity of "time to reload" and the quantity of "failure   
   rate".   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   -That's karma-   
   .   
   .   
   .   
   .   
   .   
   .   
   .   
   .   
   .   
   .   
   .   
   .   
   *GUN CONFISCATORS ONE AND ALL*   
      
   In the Senate, you can always count on Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK),   
   Susan Collins (R-ME), and Mitt Romney (R-UT) to do the wrong thing. You   
   can always count on Reps. Liz Cheney (R-WY) and Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) to   
   do the wrong thing.   
      
   Every TRUE AMERICAN should give Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Anthony   
   Gonzalez (R-OH), Chris Jacobs (R-NY), John Katko (R-NY), Adam Kinzinger   
   (R-IL), Nicole Malliotakis (R-NY), Maria Salazar (R-FL), Chris Smith   
   (R-NJ), Michael Turner (R-OH), and Fred Upton (R-MI) a call about this vote.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)