Homemade submachine guns used in Tel Aviv shooting

The homemade guns used in Wednesday's attack

The homemade guns used in Wednesday's attack

Earlier this month two gunmen burst into a restaurant in Tel Aviv’s Sarona Market, killing four people and wounding six more. The death count could have been much higher had one of the attacker’s weapons not reportedly jammed, CCTV footage appearing to show one of the gunman throwing his weapon down in frustration.

As with a number of earlier attacks this year including the shooting and stabbing of Israeli checkpoint guards at Jerusalem’s Damascus Gate, improvised firearms were used. Weapons of this type are known locally as ‘Carlo pistols’ due to their crude tubular construction reminiscent of the Swedish Carl Gustaf M45 submachine gun and Egyptian made Port Said / Akaba derivatives which are common to the region.

Carlo pistol 2

The examples used in this latest attack look to be much cruder than usual, appearing to use homemade magazines. Other models widely seized by Israeli Defence Forces appear reasonably well made and use 9mm Uzi magazines with AR / M4 pistol grips and butt-stocks sometimes fitted. As this video shows, small SMGs of this type have an extremely high rate of fire which combined with poorly fabricated magazines likely contributed to a failure to feed in this case.

Carlo pistol 1

Carlo pistol 3

Palestinianrifle1 improguns

Efforts by terrorists and rebel groups to produce homemade submachine guns isn’t anything new. Small workshops in Northern Ireland during ‘The Troubles’ churned out hundreds of crude but entirely functional weapons which were used in sectarian killings by Loyalist paramilitary groups. In the 1970s various rebel groups across South America including Argentina’s Maoist ERP set up factories to produce homemade submachine guns including close copies of the Swedish K / M45. Security forces In Colombia have in the past closed down factories operated by FARC which produced versions of the British 9mm STEN as well as MAC-10 submachine guns. We’ll likely continue to see more attacks perpetrated with this type of weapon in future, especially in areas in which the smuggling of conventional arms may present difficulties, thus leaving a void for entrepreneurs with drills and hacksaws to fill.

loyalisthomemadsubmachineguns

Homemade submachine gun factory shut down in County Down, Northern Ireland, 1988.

 




Advertisement

  • BattleshipGrey
    • Major Tom

      You can also find this kind of kit in other parts of the world like Chechnya, Pakistan and the Sonoran Desert areas of northern Mexico.

      • Jacob Peters

        Apparently in the evil Islamic Dictatorships of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia these sinister submachine guns can be easily bought. What oppressive countries these are, to legalise ownership of these mass killers.

    • MrEllis

      Not a very well constructed argument. Their weapons jammed so badly they were ineffective. We’ve seen what well functioning semi-automatic weapons can do in high density locals. This actually demonstrates less access to weapons produces lower body counts. The fact is a determined person can kill someone with their hands, no one is suggesting banning firearms eliminates violence, only the simple-minded think that or even pretend it’s on the table.

      The problem with constructing an “all or none” argument is one day you may have to fight it, and if you lose you lose everything. So instead of constructing viable, logical and agreeable outcomes you end up having terms dictated to you.

      If enough people get mad and the only argument they hear is “my cold dead hands.” Well, they see it as the irrational hyperbole it is, there is a lot of leeway between all or none. I suggest we find ground in the middle because if you base the discourse on decades of no compromise, well don’t expect it the day 51% of the people are willing to legislate guns out of effective existence.

      • caleb

        Compromise must include concessions from BOTH parties. Compromise is not I give you something and then I give you something else next time. Please dont be so eager to compromise my rights away.

        • Roy G Bunting

          Agreed. But when the gun community representative refuses to even concede the possibility of concessions, we lose all leverage.

          By fighting every little battle like NICS checks on all transfers and $5 taxes, we lose the ability to negotiate. The intransigence of the “not one inch” parts of our community have made it so our opponents won’t listen to any argument we make.

          When we refuse to even entertain the possibility of some restriction, the other side looks like the reasonable one. Sure, they’ll ask for the moon and sky, but the harder we fight to hold onto every grain of sand, the better chance they’ll win.

          And the public opinion stops seeing us as reasonable stewards of dangerous tools to wacked out yahoos who care more about guns then people’s lives.

          • Rock or Something

            I don’t compromise on a natural/God given right to defend myself, up to and including the right to bear arms, which is than ratified by the second amendment in the Bill of Rights. But I find it interesting that it’s ok for the anti-2a forces to stick to their side in arguing for the moon and the sky, but hey we are the ones that have to appear “reasonable”. When I hear politicians who talk about the Constitution as a “living breathing document”, don’t know the difference between a Mini-14, AR-15 or M4, think anyone can legally purchase firearms off the internet without background checks, or justify any and all 2a infringements with the tired trope “yelling fire in a crowded theater is not a first amendment right!” (ignoring the fact that neither has anything to do one another), I stand to believe that “reason” has long left that decorum.

            Compared to twenty, even ten years ago, with more states either Constitutional carry or will issue, more and more people getting involved with the firearms community, and most importantly, with cosmetic gun restrictions from the past “assault weapons” ban still in recent memory, I wager the pro-2a groups are actually in better shape than most would like or admit to think.

          • Mr. C

            *cough* Munich Agreement *cough*

          • David Harmon

            Again, you’re presuming to negotiate our (as in mine and others that agree with me on this) right’s away. Our (as in mine and others that agree with me on this) right’s belong to us individually, not someone else. Negotiations that are going to come to a realistic solution start with recognizing what is being negotiated.

            Simply stating that “we lose all leverage”, is the same as saying that you are upset that you have no power over how to determine how my right’s are applied. Politicians should suck it up and stay upset. I have no power over who they deem and enemy to their power, or whom they decide to drone or bomb.

            The 2A doesn’t have exceptions in it. It’s my right, not your right’s and effectively not “OUR” right’s.

            There are very few explanations for why you’re conflating this, and only one of them is ignorance. The rest are far less polite and make you out to be something you shouldn’t strive to be.

          • MrEllis

            Rights are not unto you singularly, they are Of the People. Society determines what is allowable and what is not. The paradox of demanding the Constitution being the Alpha and the Omega also leads to you having to follow the Constitution if it’s changed.

            Unless you proscribe to anarchy.

          • Jacob Peters

            A Natural Right like RKBA exists prior to any written constitution and is inalienable as it is granted by your Creator and not even you yourself could ever give it up nor can anyone ever take it from you.

          • David Harmon

            Incorrect. Right’s are inalienable in the Constitution. That means, they are not determined by society or other humans.

            You should try actually reading the supporting documents that go along with the Constitution. They clearly state that what your saying is false.

          • MrEllis

            The Constitution isn’t a force of nature, it only holds as much power as all of society allows it. You should grasp nuance.

          • Jim Jones

            Get back to me when the Ds are willing to delist suppressors and SBRs out of the NFA, and give us national reciprocity in exchange for “universal” background checks. As was shown in the votes yesterday, they do not care about what they say they care about. If they did, both republican measures would have passed. They want to eliminate the culture that gives rise to the enjoyment of firearms. If you believe otherwise, I have a bridge to sell you.

          • Roy G Bunting

            Reply to all:

            How can you expect them to listen to us when we won’t listen to them? You can equate this with Nazis, and go immediately to the endgame straw man of having to give up your right to self defense or complain that we’ve given up too much already.

            By refusing to even hear the more reasonable arguments, we use up all of our political capital before the big decisions get brought to the table. If we want to be the responsible stewards of gun rights, we need to be responsible in our word, actions and deeds. And that includes discussions with those who are challenging our stewardship. They have a grievance, writ in blood and death that we are not doing every reasonable thing we can to ensure that guns are handled responsibly. We refuse to entertain the notion that anything more can be done. This drives our opponents to appeal to the law to remove our stewardship. The hard line of “Not one more law” makes us irrelevant.

            As for concessions from our opponents, yes, they should come to the table ready to give too. Suppressors would be a good place to start. National CCW reciprocity and “Shall Issue” standards that apply to every state would be good too. But we can’t ask them to concede anything if we won’t come to the table.

            I’m not saying we should bow and give up everything. I’m saying that if The NRA had come to the table after Sandy Hook with “OK we supported universal background checks in 2000, we can live with that, lets hammer out the details” We wouldn’t be as hated now. If we showed that we *care* about keeping guns out of the hands of bigots who want to shoot up a church or nightclub and did *something* about it, we’d have a stronger place to negotiate from.

            We had some good luck in the Aughts, the original AWB sunset, Heller and McDonald rulings helped set the stage for better laws. But in the ‘Teens and Twenties we will be losing ground if we don’t find a way to work with others. They will have the meetings without us and take it all away.

          • Sam Bowles

            Compromise= They want a 10 waiting period, we give up a 3 day waiting period. I can’t remember a single incidence of the anti’s retracting anything. Every time we “compromise” we lose. We have lost enough. BTW, check out the states where compromise has worked, New Jersey, New York, California. Mass. etc. The gun owners and reps “worked with” the anti gun lobby. They are never satisfied and will always, every year, every election cycle and every tragedy, pus harder and harder.

          • Longhaired Redneck

            “They are never satisfied and will always, every year, every election cycle and every tragedy, pus harder and harder.”

            I know you meant to type ‘push’, not ‘pus’, but I think pus(s) might be more accurate. Just sayin’…

          • David Christensen

            What good is a suppressor to the law abiding citizens that don’t have a gun any more? FIX THE NO FLY LIST AND WE WILL TALK!

          • Don_R_P

            Are you a proud liberal, or just in denial? We listen, but each time they are spouting the same ideas with a slight variation here and there. Yes, there is the Nazi comparison, but it is a valid comparison since they were the only other group that was so adamant about taking away the gun rights of the average citizens. (But they are not willing to give up THEIR ability to have a firearm or someone with a firearm to protect THEM.)

            Why is it that the anti-gun crowd never want to listen to any of OUR “more reasonable arguments”… such as enforcing current laws? A “responsible steward” of rights, whether or not gun rights, doesn’t give them up little by little. How much of your other rights would you be willing to give up if someone came up with a “more reasonable argument”? Yes, we do have some limitations on the Freedom of Speech, but all of them that I know of are due to the idea that one person’s rights are his (or her) rights up until they infringe on someone else’s rights. Can you show me how my owning any kind of weapon is infringing on someone else’s rights? We already have laws to cover possible infringements on other people’s rights such as not being allowed to discharge a firearm near residential areas. How is my being able to have a standard capacity magazine (30 rounds for an AR-15) infringing on anyone else’s rights?

            You complain about the “Not one more law” argument, but that’s not accurate. The argument is more accurately “Not one more law… at least until after all of the current laws are enforced”. As has been stated over and over, gun control is not about guns, it’s about control. We have gun laws upon gun laws that are not enforced, but that is never addressed by the anti-gun crowd. They just claim that we need more laws. What good are laws if they are not going to be enforced? I remember Bill Clinton making a speech in which he proudly stated that the new background check law had prevented tens of thousands of illegal gun sales. Why is it we never heard of tens of thousands of charges being filed? To qualify as an “illegal gun sale” that was stopped by a background check, the person attempting to buy the firearm would have had to falsify and submit the form 4473. Falsifying a form 4473 is a federal felony. Where were the federal felony charges on the tens of thousands of people who falsified the forms? The number of people involved in those tens of thousands of disallowed gun sales was most assuredly significantly less than the number of attempted purchases. Had the government enforced the law, the number would have been significantly less and Clinton wouldn’t have had his talking point. Then again there is the possibility that a significant number of those were instances where the background check misidentified someone as not being able to buy a firearm which would explain no charges being filed, but if that was the case, those couldn’t accurately be identified as illegal gun sales that were prevented by the background check.

            Another argument supporting the fact that it’s about control is that most of the various proposed laws that have been proposed after the shootings would have done nothing to prevent the shooting. I can’t say ALL because I am no aware of every gun law that was proposed after every shooting, but I can’t think of any proposed law that would have prevented the shooting.

            “I’m not saying we should bow and give up everything.”
            OK, but at what point do YOU think we should stop giving away our rights? If we were to get to that point and someone else told you… “The hard line of “Not one more law” makes us irrelevant.” What would YOUR response be at that point?

            If the gun used in a shooting was stolen or purchased legally with a background check, which was the case at Sandy Hook, why are laws to change the background checks being proposed? Changing the background check laws wouldn’t have mattered. It would also have had no impact on the anti-gun crowd hating us.

            “If we showed that we *care* about keeping guns out of the hands of bigots who want to shoot up a church or nightclub and did *something* about it, we’d have a stronger place to negotiate from.”
            And exactly how do you propose we know if someone wants to shoot up a church or nightclub? I’m fairly sure that all responsible gun owners care about keeping some whack-job from shooting innocent people, but how do you identify them? How do you propose preventing them from getting a firearm without infringing on everyone else’s rights?

          • Jacob Peters

            If Gun Owners depend on Public opinion, they have already lost. Gun Owners must think like a minority group and lobby for Rights like minorities do. African-Americans or Muslims would never surrender their rights, in the way Gun Owners are being asked to do.

          • Ben Pottinger

            Except your wrong. The NRA used to work exactly the way you describe. We ended up with import bans, the assault weapon ban, the 1986 machine gun ban, and numerous other “concessions”. Then the GOA started fighting a no-compromise fight and we won in the supreme Court, we have CCW in almost every state in the country, state level restrictions and bans have been repealed, hunters can now use silencers to hunt in a majority of states and protect their ears and their dogs ears while doing so. Theirs even a bill to remove silencers from the NFA so people can buy them the same way they buy a gun without the burocratic nonsense of 6+ months of waiting (like can be done even in the UK!)

            I finally came to grips with the mindset of the anti-gunner crowd. They want them banned from existence. They truely believe they can put the genie back in the bottle and that bad people won’t be bad if denied the tools. You can’t compromise with that, you can only oppose it.

          • Billy Jack

            How does one concede access to a right?

            The harder you fight the better your chance of losing? And you invoke “wacked out yahoos?” You have a defeatist mindset.

            Give an inch enough times and eventually you’ll have nothing to give away. There already are numerous restrictions in place. There are many laws restricting use and purchase. We even have a multi-billion dollar surveillance state where all communications, banking transactions and internet usage is recorded and monitored. If they have all that and need more then they will never have enough restriction and oversight until our right to arms is totally gone. And with that gone it makes it so much easier to carve away the rest.

        • Martin M

          The problem with ‘compromise’ is that the takers keep coming back again and again. Every time they get part of what they want as part of the ‘compromise’. Eventually they get all of what they wanted, even if they got it piece by piece. Never compromise to appease.

          • Jacob Peters

            Amen. Winston Churchill understood that!

          • OndÅ™ej Turek

            It’s called “Gradualism” and the British even had a political society based in 1900 on this very principle: “The Fabian Society”, whose goal was to “Introduce socialism through gradual reforms instead of revolution.”

            They still exist today, and while it took them 60 years plus, they eventually succeeded. Exactly with the “compromise” argument, or, more precisely, in the “if you want 10, demand 1000 and then trashtalk your opponents for not ‘compromising’ with you on the 10”.

        • Bill

          The problem is the half way point keeps moving and not in our favor. Keep thinking your way and some day we will look like England.

          • Jacob Peters

            Or Canada, South Africa etc….

        • n0truscotsman

          The problem I have with the ‘we must compromise!” argument is that the “other side’ is definitely NOT intending to compromise. They want to push and push, being guided by radicals who would not be satisfied until there is total confiscation. Or at least, something like the UK’s legislation.

        • Kiernan Hoffman

          That would be called appeasement

      • Jwedel1231

        Unfortunately, it’s the simple-minded that want to enact gun control to reduce violence. They will take examples like the one above and compare them to the Orlando massacre and say “here is all the evidence we need!”, instead of looking at the crime rates nation wide before, during, and after the Clinton era AWB. Gun control has never reduced violence, never saved a life. It has promoted bombings, beatings, stabbings, etc, while simultaneously reducing the ability for John Q. Public to protect himself in the most efficient way possible.

        • Joe Schmoe

          Sure, Australia is really suffering from their gun buyback…

          • crackedlenses

            It depends on who you ask.

          • David Harmon

            How many weapons were actually turned in again? Wasn’t it like 25% and most of them were old and barely functional?

            You should spend time doing the research about what actually happened there.

      • Lee Attiny

        You actually make some pretty valid points. The inability to compromise over anything has poisoned the political landscape. I will, however, point out that it takes a lot more than just 51% of the population to repeal a constitutional amendment. A 2/3 vote is needed in both chambers of congress just to propose it followed by 3/4 of state legislatures to approve ratification meaning it only takes 12 states to kill the whole thing. In other words, I wouldn’t hold my breath.

        • MarkJ

          Democrat idea of “compromise”: a wolf coming upon a downed hunter and telling him, “I’m hungry, but, hey, I’ll compromise and just eat your legs.”

          Democrat idea of “democracy”: Two coyotes and a chicken voting on what to have for dinner.

          • MrEllis

            Inane strawman is just that.

        • MrEllis

          You don’t have to change The Constitution or it’s Amendments to cripple gun ownership. Public opinion can sway enough to reach the Supreme Court and rulings alone could cripple the 2nd Amendment. It’s arrogant to assume only one right matters and it’s untouchable. We had to change The Constitution to allow drinking, ban slavery and allow women to vote. So it’s not a perfect system, it’s just the best we have.

          I realize every person who knee jerks and reacts that if you don’t support their view 100% you’re a sworn enemy is a minority, but they are vocal and if allowed they will poison the well for all of us. To speak in broad ideals and promote he discourse of every bit of controls for firearms is evil and an attack on their very being is absurd. But if you follow the NRA bandwagon and bang that drum long enough it becomes the tune we all dance to, then some day in the future public opinion doesn’t side with you and a majority will dictate terms, regardless of your liking.

          I’m suggesting a more logical approach with true attempts at education and actual discourse. I think maybe one in ten people here have the ability to hold discourse on the subject in a rational manner. Conversely about one in ten will also become so vile and spew rhetoric so haphazardly they will destroy any chance those people have of holding viable discourse on firearms.

          It’s painfully obvious those few won’t allow for a rational conversation so I’d prefer if we just stuck to firearms and technical discussions with opinions on just firearms. Like how clearly CZ weapons are clearly superior to any other pistol. But you guys can banter about who places second.

          • HollowTs

            Sig p210 / Browning hi-power rip offs. However i do have one and they’re nice. They are however in their mechanism overcomplex compared to a Glock or a Sig.

          • MrEllis

            Funny you mention that, the CZ is the most copied pistol in the world. As for it being a rip-off of the Browning, any pistol with a short recoil system is, which is a huge chunk of them once you get past lugs, cams and links it’s almost all modern pistols.

          • HollowTs

            Do they pre-date either of the designs I mentioned? No.. The reversed rails were from the sig. Barrel lugs among other things from Browning design. So yea copied. It’s ok they were two great pistols to borrow from. Much the same way the XD borrows from Glock, Sig and the 1911.

          • MrEllis

            This is what we should be arguing about on TFB. 🙂

          • HollowTs

            Agreed! I stay away from most of the politics as some people are so dug in to their position. They aren’t going to listen anyway. All gun people aren’t “gun nuts!”

        • Billy Jack

          It takes 5 people in black to virtually kill it.

      • crackedlenses

        “This actually demonstrates less access to weapons produces lower body counts.”

        What is missed is that while the shooter may have an improvised weapon the victims will most definitely have none.

        • Joe Schmoe

          Bullshit, if you would have watched the video of the attack you would have seen that the entire attack lasted around 6 second from the beginning of firing to the end. There is no way in hell having ANOTHER random person shooting in the crowded environment would have helped lower the casualties in any fashion.

          Sorry, the reality of these kind of attacks isn’t Hollywood.

          • crackedlenses

            You ignore all the other scenarios involving a shooter. Banning guns based on one particular set-up seems shorted-sighted.

          • Joe Schmoe

            I’m not saying to ban all guns.

            It’s fine to have an AR-15 for a shooting range, it’s another to justify it as a personal defense weapon in a peaceful urban environment. Keep it accessible only at ranges and similar, in full auto if you like.

            If you want to own a handgun, etc, then it should be done with strict regulations and training (including constant re-qualifying and psychological exams), as well as a limited ammo load allowed to be stocked.

          • crackedlenses

            Said peaceful urban environment is only peaceful up until the moment someone starts shooting. As the police think AR-15s are a good idea for urban combat, I’m inclined to consider their choice in weaponry.

            I’d love to have some kind of state-level militia training that would provide most of what you listed. As for ammunition, I think the gun community would be able to keep tabs on any large purchases, as the leadup to the Orlando shooting demonstrated.

          • Joe Schmoe

            Oh come on, that’s like saying that having a BearCat APV is needed to travel to the grocery store because the police may have a few.

            I’m not sure where you live, but I’m going to guess that the police walk around with a pistol and not an AR-15 strapped to their back…

          • Sianmink

            The police have one in every cruiser. You’re really stretching here.

          • crackedlenses

            If someone has the money or materials to up-armor their vehicle I don’t see why they can’t.

          • Absolutely!

          • I actually carried an AR and a shotgun. Sometimes the shotgun was the better choice in an apartment complex or other very densely populated area.

          • David Harmon

            There are countries that already cater to that sort environment, if you like that sort of life, go move to one of them. The rest of us in the US like it how it is here.

          • Marcus D.

            Would the same restrictions, licensing and permissions be acceptable for the exercise of any other constitutional right? If not, why is the Second an lesser right, especially when the debates at the time considered it to be one of the most important?

          • A Curmudgeon

            Nice argument until your nice little urban environment is NOT peaceful. It takes only one day or night of Democrat-agitated rioting. They WANT chaos so they can “solve” the crisis with “solutions” that would never have made a difference. Like some middle east terrorists are MAKING their own subguns. Sounds like some people here are pretty short on reading comprehension.

          • David Christensen

            Why don’t we just be truthful hear and rename gun-free zones what they really are…. Killing Zones waiting to happen. They won’t because their end game is all about control, not lives.

          • crackedlenses

            I think some truly do believe they will be safer with firearms heavily restricted; I however believe that those pushing from the top are doing so for less noble purposes….

      • David Harmon

        That they didn’t test the weapons out and work out any mechanical issues just shows that they were over-eager and failed to properly workout their acts, not that the weapons were actually ineffective in reality.

        • crackedlenses

          In other words, they were the types that firearms regulations are supposed prevent from getting guns. I can see that worked out well….

          • David Harmon

            It doesn’t take a genius to build a sub-machine gun. There are literally thousands of diagrams available for cheap efficient blowback operated ones all over the internet.

            Really the only difficult part to machine on any firearm is the ammo. Even then, you can make everything with the right knowledge, which is all freely available already.

            “The cat is out of the bag”, as they saying goes.

            Any ideas about stopping people from crafting their own weapons is more than just folly, it’s sheer lunacy and a blatant waste of economic power for something that is actually impossible.

          • MrEllis

            Japan seems pretty good at it.

          • crackedlenses

            Waay different culture, and from what I have read it may be easier to get their hands on home-made (and very functional) weapons from the Danao smiths.

          • Joshua Madoc

            Japan is far more likely to commit murders with blades than guns. Not counting the Yakuza, the average Japanese is highly gun-shy, and what guns they do own are mostly Airsoft.

      • nadnerbus

        I’m of two minds. On one hand I agree with you. If we don’t ever give ground, eventually the votes will be there, and the SCOTUS majority will be there, to just take it.

        On the other hand, those who would ban guns have shown no inclination to compromise in their goal either. Giving up some thing in exchange for nothing is not a compromise.

        Personlly, I’d be ok with universal background checks in exchange for taking supressors off of NFA and making them a simple NICS item.

        I’d even go more extreme and be ok with making semi auto centerfire detachable mag guns NFA regulated, in exchange for repeal of the new machine gun ban, waiving the 200$ tax stamp on semi autos, and mandating that said law supercedes state laws. That is, California and New York have to allow their citizens access to NFA guns.

        I am biased though, as I live in Cal.

        • removing items from the NFA will instead make them illegal instead of restricted. because older state laws make those NFA items illegal and only legal when they are NFA due to amendments to the older laws.
          Its why silencers were illegal for hunting in many states despite the silencers being allowed to be used in say target practice or self defense.

          • nadnerbus

            Which is why I’d want the federal law to supercede the state laws.

            Don’t get me wrong, I’d rather see the NFA go away completly. But if we are going to have to eat a bad gun law at some point, I’d like to get something for it.

          • Ed Forney

            No such thing as a silencer.

          • its what the inventor and the law called them. also depending upon the caliber among several other factors, the sound of shell casings hitting the ground is the loudest thing and the noise of gunfire is silenced..

          • Ed Forney

            You’ve been watching WAAAY to much TV. They are called suppressors, and they make the blast just a bit less.

          • You obviously have never seen an integrated 22 firing nor a De Lisle Carbine. The bolt action on the carbine is louder then the muzzle blast. There are also numerous ar-15s that are integrated firing custom loads that the shell casing hitting the ground is louder then the muzzle blast.

          • Don_R_P

            The reason something is illegal for hunting and not for other uses, such as target practice, is strictly due to hunting laws. That’s why the ability or inability to use a .223 for deer hunting, and other limitations, varies from state to state.

      • BattleshipGrey

        In a world in which only the police and the military are allowed access to “military style” weapons and the proven fact that criminals can make their own, they only need to use their crude weapons to ambush a police officer to take his weapons if their intent is to use them against a crowd of people.

      • Klaus Von Schmitto

        It is impossible to negotiate away an individuals civil liberties. You can’t sell or buy them, you can’t be forced give them away, and you can’t be forced into a legally binding agreement to surrender them for any reason. It’s just not the way it works.

      • Jacob Peters

        The trouble with your argument is that the anti-gunners are never happy with compromises. They want to take it all away ultimately. Once you give in on one item you start down the slippery slope. This is what happened in the UK and Canada.

      • Don_R_P

        Actually, his argument is more accurate than yours. To start with, apparently you either didn’t read the article, didn’t fully comprehend what it said or are just trying to twist the facts… which is it? I’ll highlight the parts you apparently missed.

        “HOMEMADE SUBMACHINE GUNS used in Tel Aviv shooting
        Earlier this month TWO GUNMEN burst into a restaurant in Tel Aviv’s Sarona Market, KILLING FOUR PEOPLE AND WOUNDING SIX MORE. The death count could have been much higher had ONE OF THE ATTACKER’S WEAPONS not reportedly jammed, CCTV footage appearing to show ONE OF THE GUNMAN (SIC) throwing his weapon down in frustration.”

        You stated “THEIR weapons jammed so badly they were ineffective.” The article stated that only one of the guns jammed. Are you trying to say that shooting ten people was “ineffective”? I doubt that those people would agree with that, especially the four that died. According to the reports I read, the Aurora shooter actually had a high capacity magazine (I don’t remember how big) and it jammed, otherwise there would have been a higher body count. (To elaborate on that last statement, a 30 round magazine is not a high capacity magazine… it’s a standard capacity magazine.) Would you also say that HIS weapon was ineffective since it jammed?

        • MrEllis

          Oh, Irony is a cruel mistress.

      • RickOAA .

        We have “compromised” enough as gun owners with no gain as is.

        The CDC and FBI reports show the farce that is “gun control.” That restricting the law abiding will affect criminals is criminally stupid.

        The guns most targeted by bans are almost statistically insignificant, if you want to go by numbers.

        In short, screw you guys.

        • MrEllis

          I’m a gun owner and shooter, I carried one most of my life and career.

      • Ben Pottinger

        Of course you could also look at the north hollywood shootout and see that the robbers in that scenario were all wearing body armor, all had fully automatic weapons and all had multiple huge “evil” 100 round magazines. They sprayed hundreds, possibly thousands of rounds at police any anyone nearby. Yet in the end there were a few wounded police and 2 dead robbers. Taken from that evidence and my personal experience with automatic weapons I’d say we’d probably see *less* fatalities if all the mass shooters had machine guns instead of semi auto rifles. Once your dealing with a bunch of unarmed targets all you need to do is aim and shoot, the advantages that a machine gun give you are mostly negated when shooting fish in a barrel. A full auto will just end up spraying the majority of your ammo into the white space between “targets”.

        But that wouldn’t fit the narrative. Plus, it’s clear most anti-gunners get their gun knowledge from hollywood so can we really blame them when they think a MG can shoot endlessly and be waved back and forth like a laser beam of death? Or that “silencers” let you shoot people in crowded churches during mass without anyone noticing? Or that people fall over dead after one shot from pretty much any weapon, regardless were their shot? Or my personal favorite, that if your shot the #1 priority is to dig the bullet out asap. Those damaged and leaking intestines are no big deal, infection-smection.

      • Paelorian

        You’re a turncoat. I say that because we’ve been “meeting them in the middle” since 1934 and earlier. What happens when you meet them in the middle? The middle moves. The middle has been moving more and more toward disarmament. I want to see national carry reciprocity, an end to all carry restrictions on most public land, total or partial repeal of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (at least repeal the Hughes Amendment and take off SBRs, SBSs, and silencers), and the abolishment of the ATF (alcohol and tobacco regulation sounds like FDA safety and IRS tax collection, firearms need only be lightly regulated and we don’t need an agency for that). Why don’t the gun grabbers meet gun rights supporters halfway? Why is “halfway” halfway between the status quo and gun confiscation? Why isn’t “halfway” halfway between the status quo and the unrestricted liberty to keep and bear arms the founding fathers enjoyed? All you “let’s compromise a little more toward total disarmament” types are de facto disarmists in favor of ever more gun control. You know full well that compromising on any one gun control issue will not end the push for ever more gun control. We’ll end up like New York City or the UK, where air guns and pepper spray are tightly regulated, non/less-lethal weapons like Tasers are outlawed, and kitchen knives are being sold with rounded tips to make them less useful as weapons.

      • OndÅ™ej Turek

        Your arguments supposes there is a middle ground on which the compromise could be made, but practice in UK, Australia, Belgium and sustained efforts in the European Commission prove otherwise. Isn’t it strange that these “compromises” are NEVERENDING and always trend towards total gun ban? Hmmm.

        When one party requires total disarmament of all civilians, “compromise” is considered only a RUSE TO DISARM ONE SALAMI SLICE A TIME – and rightly so.

        In 1900 United Kingdom, something called “Fabian society” was estabilished. They used a turtle as their logo, and their purpose was to “introduce socialism through gradualism”.

        “Gradualism”, if you wouldn’t know, is the salami method. And they succeeded. It took them 100 years, but they won. Hence the “from my cold, dead hands” argument: when facing Gradualists, “line in the sand” is the only possible defense.

        • MrEllis

          They won because the only argument was all or none. So the battle was thusly.

          • OndÅ™ej Turek

            Imagine you (Y) have ten apples. A gradualist (G) comes:
            G: apples are bad and I want you to surrender all you have.
            Y: no way.
            G: okay, let’s make a compromise. I’ll only take one apple.
            Y: no, why the heck should I surrender my apples? They’re mine.
            G: because apples are evil. And you are fanatic, because you’re not willing to compromise.
            Y: okay, darn, here’s that apple.
            //9 of 10 apples left.
            //REPEAT 9 times

            Think this is not the case? Then do your homework and study the history of gun “control” (a.k.a.: gradual gun bans). In the US, in the UK, in Australia, in Russia, etc.

          • OndÅ™ej Turek

            But okay, there might be a fair compromise after all. If it’s true what you’re implying, that is, a compromise isn’t a tool for total disarmament one-category-a-time, you shouldn’t have a problem with this:

            “Okay, we agree on stricter background checks; you, on the other side, agree that any politician or activist who ever suggests banning, registering or confiscating any model or category of currently civilian-legal firearms, especially the AR-15 and it’s derivatives, will be sentenced to 10 years in prison.”

    • Joe Schmoe

      Battleship, that is a such a hyperbole.

      The fact is that because the firearms are so restricted, the best that these two terrorists were able to get their hands on were crude makeshift firearms that were highly ineffective when you consider there were two of them firing in a crowded area filled with civilians (not to mention one of them jammed beyond hope). Look what happened a few days later in the U.S. in a similar environment (crowded area full of civilians) with a single gunman armed with a proper rifle and sidearm.

      If anything, this supports the argument that firearm bans do work, and did prevent an even greater massacre that may have otherwise happened with open access to firearms.

      • Jwedel1231

        The only thing Orlando’s massacre proved is that when only one side has access to quality firearms, the other side is hopelessly disadvantaged. The Tel Aviv example above shows that when one side has access to crude, homemade trash, that people will still get killed.

        What’s the line they always use? “If it saves even one life..” Well, what happens when you still lose 4 due to inadequate protection? Or 50? Or an entire population loses a fundamental, inalienable right? When does that cost become too high?

        • Joe Schmoe

          They could have likely killed as many people in a stabbing attack as they did with those crude firearms, which is the point. The restrictions in place brought down the risk to a level which is controllable (for lack of a better word).

          • crackedlenses

            Doesn’t change the fact that we still have people trying to rack up kill counts in public. Doesn’t make them any less of a threat.

          • Joe Schmoe

            That’s fine, but it should be a QUALIFIED and capable individual behind that firearm, not a wannabe hero that is going to end up killing many others.

            I was a crack shot even at the beginning of my army service (one of the reasons I became a sniper). However, I was not allowed to take my firearm home with me till a much later stage in training. The reason for this is not because I wasn’t proficient with it, but because I hadn’t matured to the stage where I was capable of making a shoot or no-shoot decision. Sometimes adding bullets to others flying around does not help the situation; it’s also a matter of knowing when to use force.

            Granted of course that this does not always work 100%, and I’m not claiming it to; but I will say that by month 8 of my training I was a much more mature individual in regards to when to apply the firearm than I was in month 3, despite being as good of a shot back in month 3.

            Just my $0.02

          • crackedlenses

            This is where I would have the firearm community police its own. They don’t want crazy yahoos running amok.

            I want the public to be better educated and informed on firearms and their usage; I do not trust the government to provide the regulation and standards.

          • Jwedel1231

            Fair enough, only trained individuals should be allowed to carry guns, but who decides what makes a person QUALIFIED? I shoot pistols better than most uniformed police and the vast majority of our frontline troops. Am I qualified? I have no police or military background, only go out and constantly improve my skills. I have no paper work, except paper targets and shot timers.

            If you want to talk about acceptable risk, I think that the government deciding who is and is not qualified and mature enough will only lead to the government saying no one is, which is a risk that I cannot accept.

          • MrEllis

            Just being able to shoot is only a fraction of the qualification. You could be an Olympic standard shooter that is jaw droppingly accurate and knowledge about your firearms to the degree you can instruct armory lessons and still be the least qualified individual to carry a firearm.

          • Jwedel1231

            Exactly. Now imagine letting the government try to come up with a qualifying test that is neither woefully inadequate, nor prohibitively difficult. This is something that is best left up to the individual. Considering that CCWers in the US commit felonies at a rate lower than police officers, I think that the current system of self-training and self-policing is doing a good job.

          • Sianmink

            “That’s fine, but it should be a QUALIFIED and capable individual behind that firearm, not a wannabe hero that is going to end up killing many others.”
            Ah that old albatross.

            I’m sure you don’t know, because doing homework doesn’t seem to be your strong point, but armed civilians firing in self-defense hit innocent targets far far less often than ‘trained’ police.

            Returning fire on a remorseless killer is always preferable to sitting like a sheep and waiting to be slaughtered.

          • Sianmink

            I’m sure that’s very comforting to the families of those who were shot and killed there.

          • Joe Schmoe

            And what does this red herring have to do with the previous argument?

          • crackedlenses

            Your plan does not prevent the deaths, and it makes it more difficult for the victims to respond to attacks in general. Firearms being restricted did not help the victims of this attack.

            At least, I think that’s his point.

          • Jwedel1231

            Correct.

          • Joe Schmoe

            Having everyone in the place packing would not have prevent or even reduced the casualties; in fact it would very likely have added to the casualties. You do not need 25 people in a pizza joint packing, you just need one who knows whether or not to use the force given to him and to use it properly.

          • crackedlenses

            By your plans you would be very lucky to have that one person. My ideal percentages would put 2 or 3.

            Notice I said “attacks in general”. Restricting firearms to lessen mass shootings will reduce defense options in other violent encounter scenarios.

          • Joe Schmoe

            How many attacks “in general” justify the use of deadly force? How many are ended by such means despite the situation not calling for it?

          • crackedlenses

            Any attacks where a weapon is presented, any attacks with multiple assailants, for starters.

          • Ebby123

            Now who is abusing the red-herring argument?

            Not once in all of American history has the “OMG everyone is packing and a mass firefight suddenly erupted” prediction ever occurred.

            Furthermore, we are a free nation. We do not justify those rights based on what other people think we “need”.

            And once again, you are dealing in hypotheticals… only in this case there are decades of spontaneous friendly-fire incidents that never happened to disprove your theory.

          • Sianmink

            How many lone shooters have successfully attacked a biker or cop bar?

            That’s what I thought.

          • Jwedel1231

            Armed victims always fair better than unarmed ones, no matter the attacker’s weapon. That’s an amount of risk I’m willing to accept.

          • crackedlenses

            Aye, same here. People need more options to a facing a shooter than being a meat-shield…

          • Ebby123

            As long as we are dealing in hypotheticals, they could have been shot dead before they killed anyone if Israel had a stronger concealed carry program.

          • Joe Schmoe

            Sure, 6 seconds from start of firing to finish, I’m sure the dinners would have been able to respond.

            Uh huh….

      • crackedlenses

        The only thing that changes under the ban is that the law-abiding will no longer have access to any firearms. In your example the criminals will still have guns, albeit less effective ones. I’m not seeing how that is a more acceptable environment….

        • Joe Schmoe

          Because it shows in the 4 to 49 discrepancy.

          “Qualified” law abiding citizens will have access to high quality firearms; whether that includes security services, etc. That’s the difference and it shows when properly enforced.

          • crackedlenses

            And who will decided who is “qualified”? Those who wanted to ban firearms in the first place? So now it will only be the rich and well-connected who will be able to own guns. Sounds like a wonderful plan….

          • Joe Schmoe

            The same way it has been done to a decent level of success in other countries, including Israel.

            The sky is not falling with stronger firearm licensing (as well as restricted firearms themselves). Take Israel for example, if we look at the population over 18, minus the army and police forces, you come out with 4.15 million. Of those, 170,000 hold firearm permits in private individuals hands. Which means in addition to the nearly 30,000 police and tens of thousands of military allowed to carry, you have another 4% of the population qualified to carry.

          • crackedlenses

            Only 4%? In a country with a relatively small population and mandatory draft, not to mention near-constant terrorist attacks and war on its borders?

            I’m thinking more like 25% as the ideal number….

          • Joe Schmoe

            But therein lies the difference, the 4% are mostly qualified individuals and have to retain the qualification or get the license revoked. Not saying there weren’t some bad incidents, but overall the system has worked well.

          • crackedlenses

            Worked well while greatly reducing the number of armed civilians, yes. Once again, I don’t see this as a necessarily good thing, and I don’t believe the same regulations would have the same effects here.

          • Joe Schmoe

            Perhaps, but you’ve never tried. Other places tried and it worked.

          • crackedlenses

            Other places are less free. Freedom is dangerous and very risky.

          • Ebby123

            Name one place that is violence free as a result of gun restrictions.

            Individual rights are not subject to social utility arguments in this Constitutional Republic. You don’t get to make the individual helpless because you *theorize* that it would make society as a whole safer. That’s simply not an option you have.

          • Don_R_P

            In prison… oh,wait

          • sean

            and how does the 2011 Norway attacks fit into your backwards thinking?

          • The Israrelis will tell you they are in fear of firing their guns in self defense because they face jail if they do. They don’t do a good job of backing their people when they fire on jihaidis in self defense.

          • Jwedel1231

            Here’s where your argument falls apart: Armed victims (defenders) rarely let body counts go up to 4 or more. Every really bad shooting with high body counts is in a place where no one was armed. The worst mass shootings stopped by an armed civilian had a body count of 9 dead, and the runners up were 5. Compare that to almost any police-stopped mass shooting event.

            This isn’t just anecdotes and hypotheses, this is fact.

          • Joe Schmoe

            Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Orlando have an armed person shooting at the gunman at the very beginning?

          • Jwedel1231

            Not a ccw carrying civilian, which is the foundation of my argument.

          • Joe Schmoe

            Great, because most people usually go to nightclubs packing….

            And isn’t that exactly what we want, people going to a packed place to get intoxicated/inebriated while carrying firearms. That is going to end so well.

          • crackedlenses

            Too bad the guard was outside the club.

          • Sianmink

            Projecting?
            Armed citizens are statistically 9 times more law-abiding than the general public and 3 times more law-abiding than police. Several states have de-criminalized carry at bars and clubs, and not a one of them has seen an increase in violence at those locations as a result.

          • Ebby123

            You’re moving the goal-posts as you continue to lose this argument point by point.

            Stay on topic please.

          • crackedlenses

            It was an armed guard stationed outside.

          • ChierDuChien

            He was scared and fled. He should be charged with abetting a crime.

          • ChierDuChien

            49 deaths occurred because the security guard fled instead of confronting the attacker. That guard should never accepted the job if he wasn’t prepared to act.

            In the cartoon show in Texas, the security guard stood his ground and stopped what would have been a massacre.

    • Simcha M.

      The restrictions are for us Israelis, not for the terrorists. I remember living in Israel and being extremely frustrated over the ridiculous rules; it was like a breath of fresh air to move to the US and enjoy REAL freedom with regards to gun-ownership.

    • durabo

      The total gun ban REALLY worked in France, the most disarmed country in Europe, right?

      • OndÅ™ej Turek

        The most disarmed country in Europe is the UK, where the Laborist govt has issued pretty much total gun ban (you’re only allowed to “own” .22LR bolt action rifles and break-action shotguns, and even these, you couldn’t have at home, but in a safe on the police station or shooting club) almost 20 years ago.

        The result was steep increase in violent crime (to such extent the UK was proclaimed “the most violent country of Western Europe” in early 2000s), steep increase in firearm-related violence, and off course, massive expansion of firearms-related black market, to the extent that according to UK police detectives, “every child gang is now armed” with sawed-off shotguns or Glocks.

  • Some Dude

    We must ban home workshops. All citizens wanting to buy power tools must be checked against the no fly list.

    • Harry’s Holsters

      If they can build them their they can build them here.

  • Limonata

    I am surprised we have not seen more “improvised” weapons around the world. I know I have read stories from Australia and New Zealand. If Drug Cartels can make subs, seems like they could setup gun factories as well — then again they can just bribe officials to get guns.

    • PK

      “If Drug Cartels can make subs, seems like they could setup gun factories
      as well”

      They do. It’s not widely spoken about, you’ll have to seek the articles/information out, but they absolutely do produce firearms in addition to securing illicit supply from legal channels, such as theft from military and police armories, smuggling from other countries, and so on. The reason it’s not commonly discussed in English is that the smuggling goes north to south, guns stolen here can end up in Mexico, where they’re used and/or sent south again and again.

    • Sianmink

      International news is not eager to show this off.
      It’s there if you look for it.

  • A.WChuck

    There are Quislings among us.

    • Jwedel1231

      Agreed.

  • Lee Attiny

    Guess they didn’t have a jig to finish their 80% lowers. I still think the most impressive “improvised” firearm I’ve seen was an AK that was built by simply bending a shovel.

    • iksnilol

      Not really impressive. I mean, he only built the receiver, rest was a parts kit.

  • Ryfyle

    Those boys should have tested their mags out. and Whats up with the Gun Control shills these days?

  • Avery

    I think that a point lost in the Tel Aviv attack video is I believe the shooter who threw down his gun in frustration actually got clipped by that one guy who barrelled past him with a table as a shield, breaking the gun. At least from my POV.

    • MrEllis

      They collected the weapons,interviewed people and determined the failures.

      Untrained observes acting in a subjective manner will always see what they want. Even trained observers, watching a video at their leisure will not always agree. Interview two different people standing next to each other after a minor incident even and you’ll have two different stories.

  • Sasquatch

    As I am reading the comment section, I must get my baord out and proceed to banging my head against it.

  • Ebby123

    Wrong. For example the media is state controlled or “monitored” in many European nations. Free speech is restricted. Search warrants are easily bypassed.

    Basic human rights are traded for government control in a culture where the government GIVES you your rights, rather than truthfully recognizing that all humans have rights regardless of the existence of any government.

  • Ebby123

    *looks you in the face*
    The people of Australia are less free.

    Economic freedom, and the protection of individual human rights are not the same thing. I would not begin to argue that our economy is less restricted than other countries – we suffer greatly from socialistic infringement of the free market – something quite resented by many Americans.

    But our individual liberties are protected in a manner unlike any other major country on earth.

    You are demonstrating that observable fact right now by virtue of being here arguing to take away our “excessive freedoms”, rather than on a .AU forum scolding them for being too free.

  • David Harmon

    No, it looks like the pollsters from Gallup disagree with me, the country still has the 2A, which means it still agrees with me.

  • jon spencer

    The two easiest guns to build are, single shot shotguns and open bolt submachine guns.
    Plenty of examples and plans on the net and in books.
    Neither one requires a powered machine to build, only common hand tools.

  • MisterTheory

    This is a very depressing thread.

  • crackedlenses

    They have very limited access to weapons. Thus, they are not free to arm themselves. In that sense, they are not free.

  • MrEllis

    I’m willing to bet, empirical evidence supports most crudely fashioned weapons, with equally crude magazines, have higher failure rates than mass produced items with tighter tolerances and interchangeable parts.

    • Kelly Jackson

      Easy there Michael Moore, that wasn’t the argument you were making. Your argument is that homemade guns were inherently poor quality and there clearly isn’t the case.

  • Yes indeed you read the uniform crime report and it will open your eyes big time.

    • 1911a145acp

      Report from California DOJ in 2013 found that “long guns” were used in less than 15 % of assaults and homicides. Of the rifle CALIBERS used and identified in the report -..223 caliber was identified as 0.03 %…….

      • Doesn’t surprise me at all. I’ve worked more homicides where the caliber was .22, .32, ,25 and 38 caliber. Some exceptions of course if the gun was stolen it might be a 9mm.

  • Simcha M.

    As an Israeli and an IDF veteran, it pains me to watch this video. Nobody starts to throw cutlery, plates, drink glasses, wine bottles or falafel balls. This, in a country which was reborn as a direct result of The Holocaust and everybody alive has at least one relative who will serve, is serving or has served in the military, police, security forces, intelligence community…..

    • Joe Schmoe

      Sure, everyone is a hero just like you would be….

      • Simcha M.

        Hey Joe,

        Let’s try to keep the discussion on an adult-level and leave out the sarcasm and vitriol, shall we?

    • crackedlenses

      I’ve witnessed Krav Maga training in the US for dealing with home intruders that was exactaly what you just described. If the those Israelis had had that kind of training I wish they would have used it….

    • ArlingtonVA’s_Finest

      And everything you say is why Israel will survive and prevail.

      It’s not only because Israel has no choice but to do so, it’s also because Israelis know what exactly what they have to do, and are doing it. Political correctness and self-destructive ideologies be damned.

      • Simcha M.

        My people have a saying: “From your mouth to God’s ears”!! In other words, let’s hope you’re right because the Israeli Left, while not as nutty as the American Left, still has a lot of political sway in the Knesset. (Parliment)

        • ArlingtonVA’s_Finest

          Unfortunately, yes, I’ve seen that, and I fear for Israel each time I read about their self-destructive comments and actions.

  • Joe Schmoe

    Sure…

    I mean one of the guys shot dead there was former Matkal (one of the three most elite units in Israel), but I’m sure everyone else here in the comments section would have done much better and been the hero.

    Lots of big talk, from the first one’s that would run and hide (and rightly so)

  • Joe Schmoe

    Oh look, a “mass shooting” in Germany ends with the “shooter” as the only fatality and injury because the best the madman was able to get his hands on is a tear-gas alarm gun.

    I guess gun control didn’t work here huh….

  • Jacob Peters

    For God’s sake! Submachine guns are banned in the Free Nation of Israel. The Democrat Party in the USA has stated that if these evil items are banned, mass shootings can NEVER occur! How dare these terrorists defy a government ban!!

  • Benjamin Goldstein

    And still, the Israel government wont allow Jewish citizens the right to carry for self defense.. Even though we have all served in the IDF… Barely 16,000 none Police/Military have gun licenses.. Most of them are Security..

    • Joe Schmoe

      The number is actually 170,000 as per the licensing authority’s numbers.

  • Benjamin Goldstein

    Its suspected that HAMAS bought over Sunni sympathisers from Darra in Pakistan to operate underground gun factories in Gaza…

  • misterrabbit

    Europe has DRACONIAN gun laws in place. Paris attacks 130 dead, Paris Charlie Hebdo attack 22 dead, Brussels attack 35 dead etc etc and on and on. Gee Barack, banning guns worked out well for Europe.

    • ArlingtonVA’s_Finest

      Wait until ISIS hits again in Europe because of the successful BREXIT.

      It’ll show how wonderfully effective their laughable gun laws are.

  • durabo

    So Mullah Hussein al-Obamastan wants to confiscate all legally-owned firearms. Our home machine shops would crank out replacements. So much for ‘disarmament.”

  • Ken

    Wait, so you’re telling me banning guns doesn’t actually stop bad guys from obtaining and then using said guns to murder others?

    How come nobody has told the anti-gun folks this?

    • ArlingtonVA’s_Finest

      Mexico, Phillipines, Thailand, Brazil, and several other countries around the world have a thriving industry of hundreds of small machine shops cranking out “home made” guns, including semi-automatic & full automatic rifles.

      Note to gun-hating, hollowheaded progressive Democrats:

      YOU CANNOT UNINVENT THE GUN. PERIOD.

      And, forget going after the ammunition suppliers. There’s this thing called a “reloader”, and with thousands of relaoders and millions of ammo cases already in possession of citizens worldwide, well, sucks to be you on this idea, too.

      Why don’t you focus on tooth decay, instead?

      • Or focus on how many people die of infections introduced to them while in the hospital. That number far exceeds both car and gun deaths.

        • ArlingtonVA’s_Finest

          Good point!

          CDIFF comes to mind – I almost lost my mom when she contracted CDIFF after a surgery.

  • ArlingtonVA’s_Finest

    “Cato” as YOUR source?

    Please.

    Please take your lies elsewhere, bogus ID boy.

    We’re trying to have a FACTUAL conversation here.

    Go back to Hillary, and ask to be assigned to another forum to troll.

  • 2War Abn Vet

    Simple solution: just pass a law against homemade weapons. Oh… Wait!

  • You’ve been with TFB a long time otherwise you would be banned. Racist comments are not tolerated even once.