TMF

I'd be curious as to how.

It won't hurt it one bit.

Yep, also a valid area to disable an individual, just not as easy to hit on a moving target. Really, a moving target in general is difficult to hit, especially when that target is trying not to get shot and you're in the process of getting an adrenaline spike amongst other factors that are going to screw with your accuracy; it won't be like standing on the 7m line at the range shooting at a perfect stationary silhouette. This is why I don't see why folks get so wrapped around the axle on this. In the heat of the moment you're going to aim at the easiest thing to hit. You likely won't have time to pick and choose your shot placement. Center mass of what you have presented to you is using the law of averages; what do I have the best chance of hitting in the fraction of a second I have to make this shot. If the first round doesn't stop an attacker you should have more rounds available. Once again, the reason why in training you need to always have follow up shots and not be in the habit of firing one round at a time. Minimum two rounds, reality as many rounds as it takes.

Seems like a huge waste to have a 113, but I guess if they got it milsurp for a buck it doesn't matter. I'm just thinking how impractical it would be to drive that to a hit from a PD. I mean, the reason it has tracks is for terrain not hardball.

Agreed, to a certain extent. Big city PDs and state LEAs have had some sort of APCs for decades now, though likely they haven't had tracked vehicles like 113s and Bradleys, but that is probably just because it is so impractical. MRAPs are probably the new cool to have because you can fit more SWAT guys in them than those BRDM looking things that LAPD had. Not every little PD needs them obviously; I think the reason many of them are jumping on the opportunity is so they can say that they have one. A huge waste of money, but if the city isn't paying for it then nobody beats up the council.

Once again, these are all Army contracts, and yes, you can get the purchase orders/contracts for every last MRAP that has rolled off the line into gov hands. Congress was screaming about this in 2007 when they were trying to get these into Iraq with the quickness. DHS can't just purchase 1.4 billion in armored vehicles and shuffle that away somehow, that isn't how contracts work. There would be such a paper trail that any of the dozens of watchdog agencies who do this for a living would catch in a heartbeat. Unless, of course, this is a giant conspiracy involving thousands of Americans who have all conspired together to keep this secret, this whole thing isn't true. The closest thing to truth would be the grants that DHS was offering state and local LEAs to acquire similar armored vehicles.

It would be a bill for about 1.4 billion dollars to purchase that many MRAPs, so it should be easy to find if it existed.

I wonder if this police chief would be interested in some magic beans....

Rog, I mixed up the other retrofits going on in Astan. Regardless, the 2,700 retrofits occurred under Army contract, not DHS, so this isn't evidence of any purchase or existence of some mass fleet of MRAPs that are hidden somewhere in the US. Considering that our own Marine Corps has less than 2,300 MRAPs I'd be very surprised to find DHS with more of them, considering the Marines are actually getting blown up and shot at daily. I'd be equally surprised to find out that DHS has found a secret lair to hide this enormous fleet of vehicles that not a single person has ever seen apparently.

Go further down the page and it mentions that 2,300 of those retrofits took place in FY 2012.... all in Afghanistan.

I also have a P11 I picked up used in less than awesome shape, bit it goes bang each time I pull the trigger and the wife can operate it just fine. For the price I would recommend it as well.

I'm in the wrong business.

I'm so advanced.

I got blind drunk and carried to cabs long before the war even started.

Still trying to find a source of this information other than some guy's blog. I could say the DHS just bought 2,700 Tie Fighters but it doesn't make it true and it doesn't mean DHS is building a Death Star.

Like most statistics, people present them without context, so if I was to say that last year 2,500 US vets committed suicide then folks would think that was pretty high.  However, the latest number of annual suicides nationally was somewhere around 38,000 out of a population of 315,000,000.  Out of that population of 315,000,000 there are over 21,000,000 veterans.  If we applied the same percentage to that number of veterans it would put the number of suicides at 2,500, and that would be normal, but I have a suspicion that the number is surprisingly lower.    Of course, if you believe the media reports without context there isn't much anyone can do for you.  When a talking head comes on TV and says there were over 2,000 veteran suicides last year people think there is some kind of problem with veterans even though it is consistent with the national average.  Once again, people allowing the media to form their opinions instead of being a responsible skeptic.   Speaking from my own experience, I have yet to know a person or know of a person who committed suicide because they had PTSD.  The suicides I know of which were committed by folks on active duty were almost entirely due to Jody banging the guy's wife while he was away or some variant of that story.  There are a couple which involved financial or professional issues that caused them to pull the trigger.  Two I knew personally, and both were garbage human beings not folks suffering from PTSD.

The armed forces keeps track of suicides of their members. If someone has been discharged and then commits suicide it may be a different story, but considering over 5% of the the population are veterans of some sort that number is going to be high by default, and anyone trying to draw a link there is misrepresenting the facts. Unlike the movies, when a person returns from a deployment they aren't just released back into the wild as a civilian. They are still in the military and suicides within all active and reserve branches are tracked very closely. I realize Hollywood depicts returning Soldiers as getting off a plane driving home from the airport and that is the end of their military service, but that is because Hollywood is stupid and don't bother to research any reality they are trying to depict, and Americans believe when they are watching movies they are witnessing how life really is; that is how we ended up with stupid gun laws.

Would love to hear the talk around the water cooler back at Glock. They must be none too happy to be thrown under the bus so that some chief can get a shiny new pistol. It just seems like it'd been just fine to say, "Yep, we want out officers to carry .45s now and we got a great deal on these Sigs", and that would be the end of it. Why make a bunch of crap up? Makes it all very shady.

  The short answer is yes.  To put it in perspective, the Iraqi insurgency (both Shia and Sunni combined) at its height was incredibly small compared to the general population of Iraq... like incredibly small... less than 0.5 percent of the population.  Really really tiny.  Iraq is comparable to the size of Texas.  Occupying that country and keeping the bad guys in check was near impossible.  Yeah, we killed a whole lot of them, but body count did nothing in terms of stomping out the insurgency, and forcing us to fight in neighborhoods full of civilians only turned popular opinion against us.  They learned a valuable lesson in Fallujah, and the Shias learned a valuable lesson in Najaf; they can't go toe to toe with us and win.  Forcing us to piss off the population puts favor in their corner, while conducting attacks every so often to restrict our movement and cause us to adopt force protection measures that hinder the mission.    Now apply that to an area the size of the US.  Even if our military leaders were all in lock step with an administration at war with the people (which they would not be) and every service member was also in lock step, they would not be able to occupy an area the size of the US.  They also wouldn't be able to handle an insurgency larger than a few thousand without committing to total war, which would only make the problem worse and recruit more members to the insurgency.  Public opinion and support of the people will keep even the most fledgling insurgency alive.  If Obama suddenly declared himself king tomorrow he would only be king of areas he could control, which would be less than a few percent of the US.

I have all that stuff in my house. Is that supposed to be some kind of field expedient bomb? Do they teach every TSA halfwit that these items are somehow dangerous or just the exceptional ones with IQs above 60? And no, I don't live in a small world. I live in a world where I'd rather have a plane hijacked every once in a while than hand over freedoms. The zero defect society that you and your ilk dream of isn't possible without infringing on every aspect of a person's life. Life comes at risk from the moment you're born until the moment before you die. Accept it. Embrace it. The answer is not to restrict liberty in order to prevent disaster, it is to come up with passive measures to prevent incident, such as reinforced doors, and active measures such as Sky Marshals. If we had a Marshal on 50% of flights it would eliminate the threat of hijackings completely without infringing on a single person's rights and would be far cheaper than the TSA which is nothing but a welfare program for people with zero intelligence or job skills. I hate making such a broad assessment, but I have yet to meet a TSA agent that wasn't a complete retard.

Haha, the rest of my family outnumbers my collection by quite a bit. Between myself and my uncles we have enough to equip a rifle company just about.

While it may not be the be all end all of pistols, Glocks are probably the best semi auto to use when introducing someone to handgun shooting for the first time. Decockers, safeties, DA/SA changing are all things that I see turning off a person who has limited knowledge of firearms, especially women who tend to be raised less mechanically inclined. Just using the decocker on my Sig was enough to kill my wife's confidence on handling a pistol. With a Glock she just has to worry about muzzle and trigger finger discipline. I think as shooters we sometimes underestimate how stressful it can be for an untrained person to handle a firearm, especially when we are constantly having to chime in to correct improper handling.

  No way man, according to his post this guy is all kinds of alpha... I'd just be walking into an assbeating of severe proportions, obviously. :)

  Wow, you really get your tampon in a bunch when folks insult the TSA.  I'd say there is a higher than average sampling of people here who absolutely know what the real world is like.  I'm one of them.    We don't need the TSA.  If the reason the TSA exists is to stop planes from being flown into buildings we solved that problem with reinforced cockpit doors.  There, problem solved for what it costs the government to employ one brain-dead, mouth breathing waste of oxygen TSA agent.

  And the great thing is about folks like us is we make up for those who don't.  So in a SHTF situation, I at least have the ability to not only arm myself, but I can also arm my neighbors who always believed they never had a reason to pick up a rifle.