Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

[St. Clown]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Why have them? What purpose does an assault weapon serve except for killing large numbers of people?

What's the difference between an assault rifle legally sold to the public and a semi-automatic hunting rifle?

 

[unofan]

I believe his point is that all the laws in the land can't stop stupid.

But it can mitigate the damage caused by stupid.

 

[hockeyplayer1015]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Sure. In my definition its how many round you can fire off in rapid succession before having to stop and reload. If this guy shows up with a hand gun and fires off 6-10 rounds depending on the gun, then has to reload, maybe the cop on scene has a chance to stop him earlier. I'm curious how many rounds this guy did manage to get off.

I'm not naïve enough to think we're going to ban guns. The difference between 5 people getting killed and 50 is how many bullets the killer gets to fire.

Well, considering "assault weapons" and run-of-the-mill hunting rifles have the same capacity to fire off rounds before reloading, there is no difference. You can acquire high capacity magazines for your average hunting rifle, as well.

And, as I've stated elsewhere... magazine size really doesn't affect much. That was proven in the Columbine and VA Tech shootings, where instead of large magazines, they just brought more of them... and used them. With dry-run repetition, somebody could easily change out a magazine in 3-5 seconds at most.

 

[hockeyplayer1015]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Why have them? What purpose does an assault weapon serve except for killing large numbers of people?

Sure, I'll play.

Competitive shooting, hunting ("assault weapons" tend to be lighter weight, and customization to accommodate fit and comfort, which is why they've become so popular in hunting circles). They are no more capable of killing large numbers of people as any other weapon, despite what political people and the media have led you to believe.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Why have them? What purpose does an assault weapon serve except for killing large numbers of people?

Obviously people buy them for hunting, for going to shooting ranges and shooting them, or just to own them. There are, by various estimates, between 2 million and 5 million AR-15 style rifles in the U.S. alone, and what, have we had 30 mass shootings involving them? I don't think there are 4,999,970 people out there just waiting for the right time.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Waiting 3 hrs or so to get in there cost many people their lives. They have body armor and pledge to give their lives to save others, do it.

I assume the police waited not because they were worried about their skins, but because they were following hostage situation protocols and trying to reduce the loss of life.

 

[leswp1]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I agree that guns are not fine in certain circumstances. I was alluding to the that that gun ownership is fine under all circumstances other than metal health issue people and suspected terrorists.

Not enough money is spent on mental health. There ought to be a data base that would preclude you from buying a gun if you met the threshold of being banned due to your mental health. Seems simple enough.

The only other solution would be to ban all non single shot gun sales and collect all the firearms that are not single shot and destroy them. Then none of these instances would happen. We all know that will never happen.

I also think the Police need to act faster and just charge in there act. Waiting 3 hrs or so to get in there cost many people their lives. They have body armor and pledge to give their lives to save others, do it.

Yay for posting about mental health. This isn't about religion although to say so makes people feel better/safer/more in control. As a medical provider I have had mentally ill people request I clear them to be a gun owner. I didn't have the qualifications to do so. It didn't matter. One guy moved over the border to another state so he could own a gun. Can't tell you how safe that made me feel.

Surely there is a middle ground between the need to hoard weapons that are used in the army and destroying everything that is not single shot. After teh shootings in Scotland they passed a law that made people store their guns at gun clubs rather than in homes. That way people could have their guns, play with them and then have them stored in a safe place. Not saying this is what should be done but pointing out there can be innovative answers rather than saying remove all guns !!1!!11!! or no one should be denied the right to a gun!!11!1!!

I am a bit confused on so many levels as to why you thought the police should blast in there . Any time they 'charge in there' they risk the death of hostages. Body armor is not fool proof. It gives some protection but not full protection. They "pledge their lives to save others" but I can't believe they should be expected to be sacrificial lambs, going into sure death, without the surety of success when going into a situation. Supposedly the guy had a suicide vest on (another of his claims that turned out to be false). If he did and blew himself up he could have killed all the hostages, the police charging in and himself. I am not a policeman but I trust they had expert psych people consulting on this.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

The police didn't wait not because they were worried about their skins, but because they were following hostage situation protocols and trying to reduce the loss of life.

We were just talking about this over lunch. That was really a tricky part of this whole incident. Obviously the cops needed to be cognizant of the hostage situation. Personally I have reached the conclusion that once you have an active shooter situation, with obvious casualties, the cops need to take a chance. There is just too much risk that someone in there can be saved with prompt medical treatment. Hostage negotiation protocols are for scenarios where they guy calls up and says he's holding 20 people hostage until his demands are met. But that is obviously an amateur viewpoint.

I might be in error, but I think this was one of the issues at Columbine as well, with some delay by law enforcement and first responders in entering the building.

 

[Jimjamesak]

Well, considering "assault weapons" and run-of-the-mill hunting rifles have the same capacity to fire off rounds before reloading, there is no difference. You can acquire high capacity magazines for your average hunting rifle, as well.

And, as I've stated elsewhere... magazine size really doesn't affect much. That was proven in the Columbine and VA Tech shootings, where instead of large magazines, they just brought more of them... and used them. With dry-run repetition, somebody could easily change out a magazine in 3-5 seconds at most.

Even 3-5 seconds is enough time for people to get to safety or, like many of you seem to fantasize about, to fire off a shot of their own. So yes I would say magazine size does matter.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Sure, I'll play.

Competitive shooting, hunting ("assault weapons" tend to be lighter weight, and customization to accommodate fit and comfort, which is why they've become so popular in hunting circles). They are no more capable of killing large numbers of people as any other weapon, despite what political people and the media have led you to believe.

This. Until I see a more exclusive list than "can shoot in rapid succession" or "can fire more than 6-10 rounds before reload" I'm not at all in for an "assault rifle" ban.

Add in the fact that in the prairie states they are used as varmint guns.

 

[unofan]

) They are no more capable of killing large numbers of people as any other weapon, despite what political people and the media have led you to believe.

Would you like to retract this statement? I'd like some proof that a semi-automatic rifle is not more capable of killing large numbers of people than a knife, a bow and arrow, a sword, or a slingshot, to name just a few other weapons. Keeping in mind there's a reason these mass killers use such guns and a reason the military no longer uses longbowmen or knights

 

[leswp1]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Why have them? What purpose does an assault weapon serve except for killing large numbers of people?

My inititial response was for the same reason people need a TV bigger than their neighbors but then I read this...

Obviously people buy them for hunting, for going to shooting ranges and shooting them, or just to own them. There are, by various estimates, between 2 million and 5 million AR-15 style rifles in the U.S. alone, and what, have we had 30 mass shootings involving them? I don't think there are 4,999,970 people out there just waiting for the right time.

That is an interesting stat. I have a friend whose family member has a machine gun mounted to the back of a jeep so they can drive around their acres and shoot stuff. Not hunting. Just because they can. Do they have fun? Yup. People also want to do many other things that are fun that aren't allowed- do recreational drugs, drink and drive, etc. Somewhere (no idea where) there should be a line between wanting to have things and the 'right' to have things for a reason.

 

[SJHovey]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Would you like to retract this statement? I'd like some proof that a semi-automatic rifle is not more capable of killing large numbers of people than a knife, a bow and arrow, a sword, or a slingshot, to name just a few other weapons. Keeping in mind there's a reason these mass killers use such guns and a reason the military no longer uses longbowmen or knights

Keep an eye on this girl.

 

[dxmnkd316]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Obviously people buy them for hunting, for going to shooting ranges and shooting them, or just to own them. There are, by various estimates, between 2 million and 5 million AR-15 style rifles in the U.S. alone, and what, have we had 30 mass shootings involving them? I don't think there are 4,999,970 people out there just waiting for the right time.

I do think this is an important legal point. Handguns were cited as an extremely popular tool for defense of one's home. There is an interesting back-and-forth between the opinion and Breyer's dissent about this.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Could "assault" rifles be considered under the same qualifiers?

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Except, Sic, in the balancing process required under your analogy, aren't we required to consider how many deaths are caused by speed traps?

Do you speed where you know the cops are, or aren't (soft target).

 

[Jimjamesak]

This. Until I see a more exclusive list than "can shoot in rapid succession" or "can fire more than 6-10 rounds before reload" I'm not at all in for an "assault rifle" ban.

Add in the fact that in the prairie states they are used as varmint guns.

About that...

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Pretty sure we ban alcohol in cars in most states and set limits to how much you can mix alcohol with driving.

And yet people do illegal things with otherwise legal machines.

 

[hockeyplayer1015]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Would you like to retract this statement? I'd like some proof that a semi-automatic rifle is not more capable of killing large numbers of people than a knife, a bow and arrow, a sword, or a slingshot, to name just a few other weapons. Keeping in mind there's a reason these mass killers use such guns and a reason the military no longer uses longbowmen or knights

Somebody has a Remington .308 hunting rifle with a 10 round magazine. Somebody else has an AR-15 style rifle (.308 caliber as well) with a 10 round magazine. Which rifle, by itself, is capable of killing more people?

I eagerly await your answer.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

He's native born so no immigration failure.

If they'd have kept his fabulous father (as shown by Kep) out, he'd have been out.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Sure, I'll play.

Competitive shooting, hunting ("assault weapons" tend to be lighter weight, and customization to accommodate fit and comfort, which is why they've become so popular in hunting circles). They are no more capable of killing large numbers of people as any other weapon, despite what political people and the media have led you to believe.

If light weight and comfort are they're only benefit...why don't other guns offer those versions? Ban high rates of fire...and gun advocates should be satisfied.

What's the difference between an assault rifle legally sold to the public and a semi-automatic hunting rifle?

Any weapons with high rates of fire and large magazines are not required for hunting but are useful in killing large numbers of people.

It seems there are a handful of games that gun advocates play to avoid discussing the management of gun violence. Playing with definitions is just one.