I think blue camo is supposed to be for low-light urban stuff. Black makes too stark a contrast against some backgrounds, and blue is actually harder to see. urban camo in blue really disrupts the human outline.

That or it's just a fashion statement.

most of the stuff that you see that is blue is part of the new camo technology. pixilated, computer generated, yada,yada,yada... it doesn't just deceive the eye in lowlight situations, but can "hide" from the imagery equipment that is available.

I thought the blue was for hiding among UN troops.

He kept a gun wrapped in a WASHCLOTH? That is crazy. If it's dry it'll probably scratch it and if it's wet it'll ruin it.

The mentally disturbed handguns dont kill people, mentally disturbed people kill people. However, I think her concerns about the two elements in proximity to each other, and in proximity to her, are worth noting to your intake professional.

P.S. Many will note that there is no relation to gun ownership but... I'm reminded of a local bouncer/doorman from one of the oldest, coolest bars in town that was shot to death a few weeks ago because he threw out a drunk/obnoxious guy who was fondling women at the bar. The drunk pulled his legally owned and concealed handgun from his holster and shot the bouncer in the back as he was walking back to the bar. Then the shooter jumped in the river, and dragged out later by the cops.

P.S.S. only barely related...From my office window, much of our staff at a meeting just watched a guy jump to his death from a bridge about an hour ago. The body is still out there. He jumped from the bridge (city police jurisdiction) to the rivers edge below (park police jurisdiction), long dead, they're trying to figure it out.

:confused: What kind of weird washcloths are you using? Mine are all just soft fabric...

"ah" he said nodding knowingly, not knowing what he was nodding knowingly about..

it's taken me years to get that filter tightly in place.. just the sheer stupidity of people sometimes makes me take two steps back and give them the 'glazed monkey stare' shake my head and just walk away. I have a few of the more bizzare ones written down somewhere in an old notebook/journal.. If I can find them.. I'll write them down.. (sorry, quit drinking so I'm going to be a little less coherant than usual for a bit.. guess that's not saying much though)

A CCW doesn't allow for carry on premises that serve alcohol in most places, so np, he most likely wasn't carrying legally.

My understanding was that basically night is very dark blue, not black, black will always stand out. Thus the reasons lots of urban SpecOPs/TacResponse type teams gear is very dark blue rather than black.

Didn't someone mention blue being not as easily absorbed by the eye as the reason for the washout of some pictures?

My understanding of colour isn't wonderful but I think it's more that red is more easily absorbed than blue isn't.

Our murderer holds a legal liscense for his concealed handgun. He has no history of criminal activity other than underage drinking. He broke an even bigger law than carrying it concealed into the bar when he shot the doorman in the back 4 times in the parking lot for pissing him off. That wasnt legal either. This handgun was not used to stop crime or protect rights, perhaps you could argue that it was for used for sport.

That regulation varies from state to state. It is not in place in Pennsylvania, for example.

IIRC, less than 2% of CCW holders become involved in crimes, less than that for murders. I ran across a report from Utah that said that in 8 years they revoked 4 CCWs because of murders committed by the holders, which is much lower than the number of murders committed over the same period by non CCW holders.

The bar guy is an obvious dumbass. Carrying a weapon has a lot of the same kinds of responsibility attached as taking control of a motor vehicle.

(aside: Warch, if your coworkers have any problems related to watching the guy jump and your employer doesn't have it's own EAP, you can probably request services from your local Critical Incident Stress Management team.)

No, it was used for murder. If he had killed the guy with a brick, he would still be a murderer. The man himself did the crime, not the gun or the brick. The availability of either guns or bricks, or the legal paperwork associated with them, has no bearing on the fact that one person chose to end another's life.

Did a gun make his action easier? Sure. But the same gun also makes it easier for good people to protect themselves from murderers, rapists, thieves, hungry bears, woodchucks and soda cans. Good people should not be prohibited by law from owning items just because bad people do bad things with them. The guy was drunk -- should alcohol be banned? Are you willing to outlaw beer, wine, and liquor to prevent mean drunks from doing bad things? Same difference.

So your position is that no lines should be drawn anywhere? Everything should be legal for law abiding citizens to own? Including, lets say, WMDs?

If that's not the case, then where should the line be drawn? Are grenade launchers OK? Fully automatic machine guns? Is there any weapon that should be kept out of the hands of good guys because it is too dangerous in the hands of bad guys?

Private citizens do legally own things like grenade launchers and full auto weapons with no problems at all.

We're talking about weapons utilized for personal defense here. I don't believe that an offensive weapon like a WMD falls under that particular umbrella.