Police shooting people

danger mouse

OK I'm just back from the USA. this has been bugging me abit. OK was watching the news. They where reporting about this young lad that got shot by the cops during the week. now i cant see what the problem with this was. the little f**ker had a gun pointed at the cops and got blown away (fair enough i say) but the result of this was the three cops got taken off the job and there is a huge out cry about this.. IMO he got what he deserved and this kind of no nonsense approach should be brought in over here as far as I'm concerned. it reminded me of the two toe rags that where trying to rob that post office in lusk and got put down by the cops for their troubles. what do people think? should we be more on the ball and have more cases where these little knackers get the bullet first ask questions later. better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6 as a resent movie put it so well.

MrJoeSoap

I wish the Garda shotted more people tbh.

stepbar

Why do they have to "blow them away"? Can't they just not shoot to maim?

passive

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

I wish the Garda shotted more people tbh.

I wish the grammar sheriff were around...

lynnlegend

if he has a white track suit tucked into his socks dont ask any question

MrJoeSoap

passive wrote: »

I wish the grammar sheriff were around...

The thread title has been edited so my post probably makes little sense now!

sebastianlieken

good for them! rightfully so, police did what id have done....lil ****er points a gun at me if i were in uniform, id "blow him away"

Overheal

Was the gunner killed?

Then yes: they were suspended for good reason. As a police officer you do not shoot to kill. Generally speaking you do not shoot. Theres dozens of non-lethal shots an officer can take in that situation, starting with the legs. Knees are alas, a no-no as it results in permanent injury. If you must kill the suspect, so be it, but you'd want to be awfully sure. 3 cops versus 1 crook? Thats questionable.

The greatest shot ever taken by the law was by a US ranger; the gunmen was threatening to take his own life etc etc etc. As the police talked him down the ranger sniped the gun right out of his hand and it shattered into a dozen pieces right on camera. The suspect was never injured.

Captain Chaos

stepbar wrote: »

Why do they have to "blow them away"? Can't they just not shoot to maim?

Becasue the the police force of any country are not tought to shoot to maim or wound. Its a shoot to kill or defend policy. If you want to main or knock people down, thats what less than lethal weapons are for.

This is the real world after all not Hollywood. The police and army do not practice drawing smiley faces with bullets on walls all day.

thelordofcheese

danger mouse wrote: »

OK I'm just back from the USA. this has been bugging me abit. OK was watching the news. They where reporting about this young lad that got shot by the cops during the week. now i cant see what the problem with this was. the little f**ker had a gun pointed at the cops and got blown away (fair enough i say) but the result of this was the three cops got taken off the job and there is a huge out cry about this.. IMO he got what he deserved and this kind of no nonsense approach should be brought in over here as far as I'm concerned. it reminded me of the two toe rags that where trying to rob that post office in lusk and got put down by the cops for their troubles. what do people think? should we be more on the ball and have more cases where these little knackers get the bullet first ask questions later. better to be judged by 12 then carried by 6 as a resent movie put it so well

So, if i get your long, rambling post correctly, he was outnumbered three to one (all armed) and they still felt the need to blow him away?
Yeah, i can see why people might be a bit upset, ohh it's all so crazy, ain't it.

Riddle101

Yes it's time to put fear back into the criminals. I worry about the cops walking around the street with no weapons, yet these gangs are carrying AK47's around and can do serious damage to people

galwayrush

MrJoeSoap wrote: »

I wish the Garda shotted more people tbh.

+1
The garda should be able to shoot scum all year round, and i'd like an open season where we all could have a go.:cool:

Virgil°

thelordofcheese wrote: »

So, if i get your long, rambling post correctly, he was outnumbered three to one (all armed) and they still felt the need to blow him away?
Yeah, i can see why people might be a bit upset, ohh it's all so crazy, ain't it.

And if said guy had shot one of them?

Schism

lynnlegend wrote: »

if he has a white track suit tucked into his socks dont ask any question

QFT :pac:

Seriously it'll never come to the point where the policy is to shoot first and ask questions later.

danger mouse

thelordofcheese wrote: »

So, if i get your long, rambling post correctly, he was outnumbered three to one (all armed) and they still felt the need to blow him away?
Yeah, i can see why people might be a bit upset, ohh it's all so crazy, ain't it.

stupid post /\/\

johnnyskeleton

From the wire.

So trusting in the police you are.

Don't doubt that the Gardai would make up something about a gun being pointed at them if needs be.

Overheal

use

lynnlegend

Overheal wrote: »

Was the gunner killed?

Then yes: they were suspended for good reason. As a police officer you do not shoot to kill.

The greatest shot ever taken by the law was by a US ranger; the gunmen was threatening to take his own life etc etc etc. As the police talked him down the ranger sniped the gun right out of his hand and it shattered into a dozen pieces right on camera. The suspect was never injured.

thats a fair point but would you if were the cop and its a split second desion and you get to go home safe and sound when the other option is to give them a chance to get a shot off at you or your friends

johnnyskeleton

Overheal wrote: »

use

Much obliged

MizzLolly

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Much obliged

You aren't 20ish with brown hair and a Louth accent are ya?

johnnyskeleton

MizzLolly wrote: »

You aren't 20ish with brown hair and a Louth accent are ya?

You can tell all of that by my inability to post a youtube video?

Rb

If he pointed a gun at them, then fair enough, shoot him dead. Shooting him in the legs may bring him down, but he could well take a quick shot at you that could end up killing you.

Same goes for police or weapon holders, if someone points a gun at you, kill them.

danger mouse

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

From the wire.

So trusting in the police you are.

Don't doubt that the Gardai would make up something about a gun being pointed at them if needs be.

ehhh Hollywood TV= not real life!!!1

johnnyskeleton

danger mouse wrote: »

ehhh Hollywood TV= not real life!!!1

American Media= not real life either.

I guess you have to pick the lies that closest resemble the truth.

lynnlegend

rb_ie wrote: »

If he pointed a gun at them, then fair enough, shoot him dead. Shooting him in the legs may bring him down, but he could well take a quick shot at you that could end up killing you.

Same goes for police or weapon holders, if someone points a gun at you, kill them.

dead right is this country ever going to stop mothering people that break the law

Dyr

Overheal wrote: »

Was the gunner killed?

Then yes: they were suspended for good reason. As a police officer you do not shoot to kill. Generally speaking you do not shoot. Theres dozens of non-lethal shots an officer can take in that situation, starting with the legs. Knees are alas, a no-no as it results in permanent injury. If you must kill the suspect, so be it, but you'd want to be awfully sure. 3 cops versus 1 crook? Thats questionable.

What comic did ye read that in then?

Lemming

Overheal wrote: »

The greatest shot ever taken by the law was by a US ranger; the gunmen was threatening to take his own life etc etc etc. As the police talked him down the ranger sniped the gun right out of his hand and it shattered into a dozen pieces right on camera. The suspect was never injured.

I think I saw the footage of that. Guy was waving the gun around whilst standing at a first floor window?

But that said and done, how many police officers have military training and are expert marksmen. Granted, you'd like to think they're all expert marskmen/women given they're carrying firearms but most aren't. So the chances of missing a small target and hitting something else are very high.

Even look at the Abbeylara siege. McCarthy was "dead" when he left his front doorstep with that shotgun. The ERU had no option but to shoot to kill in case he discharged the shotgun at someone, even accidentally.

Whilst it can be said three officers against the kid looks a bit iffy, we've no idea of the circumstances. Was it in the middle of a busy street? Near people's homes, etc.?

Captain Chaos

Lemming wrote: »

I think I saw the footage of that. Guy was waving the gun around whilst standing at a first floor window?

But that said and done, how many police officers have military training and are expert marksmen. Granted, you'd like to think they're all expert marskmen/women given they're carrying firearms but most aren't. So the chances of missing a small target and hitting something else are very high.

Even look at the Abbeylara siege. McCarthy was "dead" when he left his front doorstep with that shotgun. The ERU had no option but to shoot to kill in case he discharged the shotgun at someone, even accidentally.

Whilst it can be said three officers against the kid looks a bit iffy, we've no idea of the circumstances. Was it in the middle of a busy street? Near people's homes, etc.?

In the McCarthy case, I believe he was hit once, failed to stop, hit again, he kept moving and then two shots fired in quick succession stopped him.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Spitfire666

there is no such thinng as shoot to maim or wound or incepacitate or whatever else you want to say. if you need to shoot it is because the situation required it. so you shoot to kill. thats it.
its also cheaper to pay out if you shoot to kill rather then shoot to maim and the guy becomes paraplegic or whatever and the state have to pay for him for the rest of his life but then thats the sceptic's take on it.

Also, what does it matter how many people it is against 1 guy. if he has a gun and aims at one of any number of people, then he should be shot. just because it was 3 on 1 doesnt mean the danger of getting shot wasnt there.

Overheal

Bambi wrote: »

What comic did ye read that in then?

Police Academy. I think.

Theres been many a crook freed because the police used 'excessive force' - ie. trying to disable the man rather than kill him, a police officer shot a man in the knee-cap and the suspect got to walk free. I could be years pulling up the case report sadly. I cant remember how many years ago it was or even what state the incident took place in.

Lemming wrote:

I think I saw the footage of that. Guy was waving the gun around whilst standing at a first floor window?

But that said and done, how many police officers have military training and are expert marksmen. Granted, you'd like to think they're all expert marskmen/women given they're carrying firearms but most aren't. So the chances of missing a small target and hitting something else are very high.

This happened at street level and the ranger had time to set up his rifle tripod and everything. Still, an amazingly well placed shot. He wasn't part of the police force so you're right there.

Even with practice too, you're right in saying its very difficult to place your shots. The beretta/glocks that most police forces are armed with, I have shot on the range - and especially the beretta - have a mean kick to them. So in a real world scenario I can only imagine how hard it would be to place a shot.

Still I'd love to hear more about this particular incident.

MissLolly wrote:

You aren't 20ish with brown hair and a Louth accent are ya?

I'm 20 an I can post a video

rb_ie wrote:

If he pointed a gun at them, then fair enough, shoot him dead. Shooting him in the legs may bring him down, but he could well take a quick shot at you that could end up killing you.

Same goes for police or weapon holders, if someone points a gun at you, kill them.

If only t'were so simple. It starts with The Right to Bear Arms, carries on to vigilantism, and then you have to see everything on a case-by-case after so long.

But first and foremost not everyone holding a gun (in fact very few) will actually have the conviction to pull the trigger. And that includes Officers. Hesitation is human.

coyote6

Overheal wrote: »

Was the gunner killed?

Then yes: they were suspended for good reason. As a police officer you do not shoot to kill. Generally speaking you do not shoot. Theres dozens of non-lethal shots an officer can take in that situation, starting with the legs. Knees are alas, a no-no as it results in permanent injury. If you must kill the suspect, so be it, but you'd want to be awfully sure. 3 cops versus 1 crook? Thats questionable.



The greatest shot ever taken by the law was by a US ranger; the gunmen was threatening to take his own life etc etc etc. As the police talked him down the ranger sniped the gun right out of his hand and it shattered into a dozen pieces right on camera. The suspect was never injured.

I've been a law enforcement firearms instructor for over 10 years in the states. We are not trained to aim for the legs. We train to aim for center mass. Research a bit about combat stress (i.e. what happens when you are in life or death encounter) and you'll discover that one most often loses fine motor skills. Therefore you usually don't even use sights at close range or at best for highly trained operators the front sight. The quoted piece above is nonsense.

I also train police snipers and have been one myself for 6 years. That shot was very much not the norm. Snipers don't typically shoot guns out of hands. Quite frankly snipers are most often OBSERVER/snipers with the heavy emphasis on OBSERVER i.e. intel, overwatch etc.

The greatest shots ever taken are yet to be reported officially. But if you're interested look up USMC Gunnery sgt. Carlos Hathcock. Then you'll see what a sniper is. Enough history has past that his story is the one that wrote the book on snipercraft.

The quoted piece is a result of too much belief in hollywood and you tube I'm afraid.

Lemming

Captain Chaos wrote: »

In the McCarthy case, I believe he was hit once, failed to stop, hit again, he kept moving and then two shots fired in quick succession stopped him.

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Which underscores why police forces shoot to kill. A single shot didn't stop him (had it been intended to wound) so intent was he on doing whatever it was that was going through his mind just prior to being killed.

But this isn't a discussion on AbbeyLara. I'm just using it as a recent and local incident of why police forces around the world tend to follow a shoot-to-kill policy above hoping to incapacitate. Maybe spec-ops teams could shoot-to-wound but then again, each of those folks is worth a significant amount of time & money.

johnnyskeleton

Overheal wrote: »

Theres been many a crook freed because the police used 'excessive force' - ie. trying to disable the man rather than kill him, a police officer shot a man in the knee-cap and the suspect got to walk free.

Hobbled more like.

lynnlegend

should we set up a voteing system i would if i knew how

coyote6

Lemming wrote: »

Which underscores why police forces shoot to kill. A single shot didn't stop him (had it been intended to wound) so intent was he on doing whatever it was that was going through his mind just prior to being killed.

But this isn't a discussion on AbbeyLara. I'm just using it as a recent and local incident of why police forces around the world tend to follow a shoot-to-kill policy above hoping to incapacitate. Maybe spec-ops teams could shoot-to-wound but then again, each of those folks is worth a significant amount of time & money.

We are NOT trained to kill. We are trained to shoot to stop the threat. We train to shoot center mass of the target presented. If that means they die then I guess it's not a good plan to point guns at the police. Fair enough?

Where's Manic Moran when I need him?

lynnlegend

coyote6 wrote: »

We are NOT trained to kill. We are trained to shoot to stop the threat. We train to shoot center mass of the target presented. If that means they die then I guess it's not a good plan to point guns at the police. Fair enough?

Where's Manic Moran when I need him?

enough said then he had a gun he took a chance tough sh*t

Lemming

coyote6 wrote: »

We are NOT trained to kill. We are trained to shoot to stop the threat. We train to shoot center mass of the target presented. If that means they die then I guess it's not a good plan to point guns at the police. Fair enough?

Where's Manic Moran when I need him?

Sorry, poor choice of words. Let me rephrase that, not "shoot to wound" per-se. So in aiming for centre-mass it's all in the fate of the gods as to the target's survival or not.

Captain Chaos

Lemming wrote: »

Which underscores why police forces shoot to kill. A single shot didn't stop him (had it been intended to wound) so intent was he on doing whatever it was that was going through his mind just prior to being killed.

But this isn't a discussion on AbbeyLara. I'm just using it as a recent and local incident of why police forces around the world tend to follow a shoot-to-kill policy above hoping to incapacitate. Maybe spec-ops teams could shoot-to-wound but then again, each of those folks is worth a significant amount of time & money.

Exactly, my point was that that case was outside the norm as they shot to dis able or maim as they had the time and position to do so.

There is a reason that police forces are looking into less than lethal weapons and options, bean bag and teaser shot gun rounds aimed at center mass being popular ATM.

coyote6

Lemming wrote: »

Sorry, poor choice of words. Let me rephrase that, not "shoot to wound" per-se. So in aiming for centre-mass it's all in the fate of the gods as to the target's survival or not.

I'm not sure about the fate thing. I just don't want to go home in a bag.

danger mouse

coyote6 wrote: »

We are NOT trained to kill. We are trained to shoot to stop the threat. We train to shoot center mass of the target presented. If that means they die then I guess it's not a good plan to point guns at the police. Fair enough?

Where's Manic Moran when I need him?

i totally agree.

if a person is known to have a gun on their person or points a gun at a law enforcement officer, they should be taken down, it doesn't matter about their current state of mind or agenda. they should be stopped at all costs. if that means killing them then so be it. It was their choice to carry a weapon in the first place. I'm sick of hearing stories about knackers pointing guns at cops and getting away, because the garda only have a pencil and note pad to defend themselves with. This usually means injury or death to innocent members of the public with their ****ty imported drug trade guns.

Spitfire666

Lemming wrote: »

Sorry, poor choice of words. Let me rephrase that, not "shoot to wound" per-se. So in aiming for centre-mass it's all in the fate of the gods as to the target's survival or not.

As above

lynnlegend

coyote6 wrote: »

I'm not sure about the fate thing. I just don't want to go home in a bag.

dead right and an armed robber picks his own fate when he dosent drop his gun when three armed gardas tell him

coyote6

Spitfire666 wrote: »

there is no such thinng as shoot to maim or wound or incepacitate or whatever else you want to say. if you need to shoot it is because the situation required it. so you shoot to kill. thats it.
its also cheaper to pay out if you shoot to kill rather then shoot to maim and the guy becomes paraplegic or whatever and the state have to pay for him for the rest of his life but then thats the sceptic's take on it.

Also, what does it matter how many people it is against 1 guy. if he has a gun and aims at one of any number of people, then he should be shot. just because it was 3 on 1 doesnt mean the danger of getting shot wasnt there.

Exactly right. I don't want to be "MOE" when the bad guy sez "EENY, MEENY, MINY", if you know what I mean!

Spitfire666

at the end of the day, if the situation gets to a state where the guy is going to shoot or raises a gun at all, the fact that there are more then one cop just means that there is a 3 in 1 chance that a certain cop would be shot,but by looking at it the other way there are 3 cops to choose from if he shoots.

meathstevie

Your average centerfire pistol or revolver, which coincidentially happens to be the standard police firearm just about anywhere is not a precision tool it's more a matter of stopping power. It's main use would be defensive and it's main role would be transferring a good deal of energy on the target, hence the fairly big ( as in size of the bullet ) calibres being used.

A sniper rifle that would allow a precision shot is a completely different sort of an animal altogether. For starters it fires a completely different sort of bullet, is fired from the shoulder and not from the hand and more often than not additional supports ( bipods or shooting bags ) are being used. The barrel lenght would be many times longer in order to stabilise the bullet and provide accuracy over long distances etc etc.... This is only the firearm as such, as a rule aiming a sniper rifle is done through a telescopic sight : a high quality optical precision instrument zeroed on the particular rifle at a particular distance to target. A pistol or revolver with it's limited accuracy and range is often aimed by simple "iron sights", being a notch at the back to be lined up with a bead on the front.

Police officers carrying pistols or revolvers are not being trained to take "fancy shots" but are trained to neutralise a treath which means that you aim for the biggest visible surface of your target which is not a shoulder, elbow, knee or even head.

Remember that an average cop having to use a revolver or pistol on the job will be doing this in an extremely dangerous situation either to protect their own life, a buddy's life or an innocent civilian ( or all at the same time as happened in Lusk Post Office ) and does generally not have the luxury of being able to miss without dire consequences.

You should also keep in mind that when a cop has to use lethal force an inquest will always follow and while that is ongoing the officer(s) will quite often be suspended or at least taken of firearm duties and that in the overwhelming majority of cases they're found to have been acting perfectly within laws and regulations.

And when they're found not to have used lethal force in a legitimate way any self respecting democracy will start a disciplinary AND a criminal procedure against them that could lead to a murder or manslaughter conviction.

thelordofcheese

danger mouse wrote: »

stupid post /\/\

I wuvs you too, ya little scamp.

coyote6

meathstevie wrote: »

Your average centerfire pistol or revolver, which coincidentially happens to be the standard police firearm just about anywhere is not a precision tool it's more a matter of stopping power. It's main use would be defensive and it's main role would be transferring a good deal of energy on the target, hence the fairly big ( as in size of the bullet ) calibres being used.

A sniper rifle that would allow a precision shot is a completely different sort of an animal altogether. For starters it fires a completely different sort of bullet, is fired from the shoulder and not from the hand and more often than not additional supports ( bipods or shooting bags ) are being used. The barrel lenght would be many times longer in order to stabilise the bullet and provide accuracy over long distances etc etc.... This is only the firearm as such, as a rule aiming a sniper rifle is done through a telescopic sight : a high quality optical precision instrument zeroed on the particular rifle at a particular distance to target. A pistol or revolver with it's limited accuracy and range is often aimed by simple "iron sights", being a notch at the back to be lined up with a bead on the front.

Police officers carrying pistols or revolvers are not being trained to take "fancy shots" but are trained to neutralise a treath which means that you aim for the biggest visible surface of your target which is not a shoulder, elbow, knee or even head.

Remember that an average cop having to use a revolver or pistol on the job will be doing this in an extremely dangerous situation either to protect their own life, a buddy's life or an innocent civilian ( or all at the same time as happened in Lusk Post Office ) and does generally not have the luxury of being able to miss without dire consequences.

You should also keep in mind that when a cop has to use lethal force an inquest will always follow and while that is ongoing the officer(s) will quite often be suspended or at least taken of firearm duties and that in the overwhelming majority of cases they're found to have been acting perfectly within laws and regulations.

And when they're found not to have used lethal force in a legitimate way any self respecting democracy will start a disciplinary AND a criminal procedure against them that could lead to a murder or manslaughter conviction.

Fantastically put Meath Stevie. You know what a pistol is REALLY for?....Fighitng your way to your rifle!:)

Manic Moran

Why do they have to "blow them away"? Can't they just not shoot to maim?

No. You try it, see how well you do.

Then yes: they were suspended for good reason. As a police officer you do not shoot to kill. Generally speaking you do not shoot. Theres dozens of non-lethal shots an officer can take in that situation, starting with the legs. Knees are alas, a no-no as it results in permanent injury.

Utter male bovine fecal matter.

As Coyote said: Shoot to stop. Once you have taken the decision that the target is a threat to life or limb, you aim centre mass, pull the trigger, and you keep pulling the trigger until either (a ) you run out of ammunition or (b ) the threat is no longer a threat. If the guy happens to survive, so be it. That's why they don't say 'shoot to kill', because that's not the intent. It's often the effect, but it's more a side-effect (albeit a pretty major one!). It will usually take more than one pistol calibre shot to stop someone, it's not Hollywood where a single 9mm round impacts on someone and he is thrown backwards. (Think Newton's third law and the effects on the shooter).

Stress is bad enough that you don't want to be trying fancy trick shots. Go watch 'World's Scariest Police Videos' or some such, and watch the shootouts happening at ranges of six feet where both sides manage to miss entirely. It's hard enough just to hit a man-sized target.

Where's Manic Moran when I need him?

Sorry. I'm in Ft Knox, learning how to more efficiently blow people away. It's a multi-national class, so there was this big shindig this evening at the O-Club where they all had tables with local delicacies and other national information. Tried the dates at the Jordanian table, I really don't see the big deal. Taiwan was pretty good though. Belgium, Germany and Canada were all offering beer...

Ah, the fringe benefits of applying yourself to the art of directed violence.

Going back to the original question, however...

the result of this was the three cops got taken off the job and there is a huge out cry about this

It's pretty much standard procedure that any time a cop shoots someone, he's suspended with pay while people figure out what happened. If it was an unjustified shoot, you don't want him on the street. Even if it was a justified shoot, the man has just shot someone, and is probably going to have to come to terms with it. This will take a little time, and it's not a bad thing to take him off the job for a while anyway, so the counsellers and whoever can help him out. As for the huge outcry, there's always a huge outcry, be it claims of racism, police brutality, or whatever. Ever notice how friends and family are always on the news afterwards saying "He was a good boy, would never hurt anyone". If he was such a good boy, what the hell was he doing threatening cops with a firearm?

NTM

coyote6

Manic Moran wrote: »

Utter male bovine fecal matter.

As Coyote said: Shoot to stop. Once you have taken the decision that the target is a threat to life or limb, you aim centre mass, pull the trigger, and you keep pulling the trigger until either (a ) you run out of ammunition or (b ) the threat is no longer a threat. If the guy happens to survive, so be it. That's why they don't say 'shoot to kill', because that's not the intent. It's often the effect, but it's more a side-effect (albeit a pretty major one!). It will usually take more than one pistol calibre shot to stop someone, it's not Hollywood where a single 9mm round impacts on someone and he is thrown backwards. (Think Newton's third law and the effects on the shooter).

Stress is bad enough that you don't want to be trying fancy trick shots. Go watch 'World's Scariest Police Videos' or some such, and watch the shootouts happening at ranges of six feet where both sides manage to miss entirely. It's hard enough just to hit a man-sized target.



Sorry. I'm in Ft Knox, learning how to more efficiently blow people away. It's a multi-national class, so there was this big shindig this evening at the O-Club where they all had tables with local delicacies and other national information. Tried the dates at the Jordanian table, I really don't see the big deal. Taiwan was pretty good though. Belgium, Germany and Canada were all offering beer...

Ah, the fringe benefits of applying yourself to the art of directed violence.

NTM

Hey Manic. If you're going to be in KY on the 11-13th of April make sure not to miss the machine gun shoot at Knob Creek. It's right up the road from Knox (about 5 or 10 miles east) I'll be in St. Louis on a trip....pity.

If you ever get up to Indiana send me a PM and we'll have a pint.

Manic Moran

Oh, I'll be there, though mainly just for the spectacle and to check out the vendors. I want to pick up a few magazines for my FAL and a new front sight and spring. I get enough machineguns at work, I don't need to pay for the pleasure.

Whereabouts in IA are you? I have plenty of weekends free between now and August.

NTM

coyote6

Manic Moran wrote: »

Oh, I'll be there, though mainly just for the spectacle and to check out the vendors. I want to pick up a few magazines for my FAL and a new front sight and spring. I get enough machineguns at work, I don't need to pay for the pleasure.

Whereabouts in IA are you? I have plenty of weekends free between now and August.

NTM

I go for the vendors and the spectacle also. It's pretty fun.

I'm in Connersville, Indiana. It's about an hour E-SE of Indy and about 50 miles NE of Cincy. It'd be good to meet you.