gun control

[Turdacious]

Gene, the dead aren’t the only victims here. Every single piece of research done tells us that being involved in a school shooting, not killed or even wounded but just involved, is enormously traumatizing. Giving out PTSD like candy.

[JimZipCode]

Pretty sad when someone doesn't know who is pulling their strings...... I'm amazed that you did not know about the Oligarchs...

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is refocusing his efforts at curbing guns in America

Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates and his wife Melinda donated $1 million to the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility

Warren Buffett
The Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO sits on the advisory board of Bloomberg’s organization Everytown for Gun Safety.

In 2014, Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen donated $500,000 to a campaign advocating expanded background checks in Washington state.

Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, who is valued at $23.2 billion, was a major proponent of Initiative 594 in Washington state, the same provision on background checks that Bill Gates and Paul Allen supported.

George Soros also donated $50,000 to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in the wake of the Newtown shooting.

Oh! Holy shit! Everything makes so much sense now!

Thanks for opening my eyes.

[nafod]

This latest shooter in Texas: shotgun and revolver.

Thank goodness, or it’d be in the 20s or 30s of dead.

What's your source for that?

The public record of mass shootings and the maximum body count when the weapon is a shotgun or revolver versus when it is an AR.

“This was a terrible tragedy, but sometimes these things just happen and there’s nothing anyone can do to stop them,” said Ohio resident Erica Webb, echoing sentiments expressed by tens of millions of individuals who reside in a nation where over half of the world’s deadliest mass shootings have occurred in the past 50 years and whose citizens are 20 times more likely to die of gun violence than those of other developed nations.

[johno]

The public record of mass shootings and the maximum body count when the weapon is a shotgun or revolver versus when it is an AR.
...

Have you forgotten the Virginia Tech* and Colorado Theater** killers?

Apparently you assume that this murderer's determination & strategy was to set a record, similar to many of the others. Here, there is evidence that he skipped killing certain kids.

Also, he was engaged by the on-scene Resources Officer, so the police response was much faster.



*Semi-auto handgun
**Shotgun when semi-auto failed.


********


Which brings me back to my previous unanswered challenge:

You have high body-count incidents committed both with pistols and with AR's. At various times, the "record" has been held by either.* The weapon is not the determining factor.


In the Las Vegas murders, the key factor was firing on a mass of people who couldn't escape.

Don't tell me that ten minutes of unimpeded fire with a deer rifle wouldn't accomplish the same horror.
One 30.06 round every 2 seconds X 10 minutes = up to 300 rounds with a truly devastating round. Could that take 58 lives?


*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shoo ... ted_States

[nafod]

The public record of mass shootings and the maximum body count when the weapon is a shotgun or revolver versus when it is an AR.
...

Have you forgotten the Virginia Tech* and Colorado Theater** killers?

Apparently you assume that this murderer's determination & strategy was to set a record, similar to many of the others. Here, there is evidence that he skipped killing certain kids.

Also, he was engaged by the on-scene Resources Officer, so the police response was much faster.



*Semi-auto handgun
**Shotgun when semi-auto failed.


********


Which brings me back to my previous unanswered challenge:

You have high body-count incidents committed both with pistols and with AR's. At various times, the "record" has been held by either.* The weapon is not the determining factor.


In the Las Vegas murders, the key factor was firing on a mass of people who couldn't escape.

Don't tell me that ten minutes of unimpeded fire with a deer rifle wouldn't accomplish the same horror.
One 30.06 round every 2 seconds X 10 minutes = up to 300 rounds with a truly devastating round. Could that take 58 lives?


*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shoo ... ted_States

Seriously, how many billions of dollars are spent refining assault weapons to maximum efficiency at killing when a pistol, shotgun, or revolver are (according to your argument) just as effective?

Your argument just makes absolutely zero sense. That's why no one responded. Money talks...

[johno]

Seriously, how many billions of dollars are spent refining assault weapons to maximum efficiency at killing when a pistol, shotgun, or revolver are (according to your argument) just as effective?

Your argument just makes absolutely zero sense. That's why no one responded. Money talks...

1 - You sound like a fool. You were in the military - what were the conditions & standards for development of a soldier's rifle?
Are the needs of a mass shooter similar?

Does a school shooter need to make hits beyond 50 yards?
Does a school shooter need lightweight ammunition...a lightweight rifle? Why? Is he going on a 6 day patrol?

You think the 5.56 has "maximum killing efficiency?" Try that on anyone who knows rifle ballistics.



2 - Re: my lethality argument. No one can answer it because they are living in the Land of Wishful Thinking, denying that banning ARs could push killers to more lethal alternatives.

[tough old man]

How about this mass shooter? Oooops, he's European where it doesnt happen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks

[nafod]

Seriously, how many billions of dollars are spent refining assault weapons to maximum efficiency at killing when a pistol, shotgun, or revolver are (according to your argument) just as effective?

Your argument just makes absolutely zero sense. That's why no one responded. Money talks...

1 - You sound like a fool. You were in the military - what were the conditions & standards for development of a soldier's rifle?
Are the needs of a mass shooter similar?

They are.

The mass shooters themselves know this, even if you don't. It's the weapon of choice, for good reason.

Case in point, the Sandy Hook shooter had an AR-ish weapon, two handguns, and a shotgun. Guess what he used for 99.5% of his shots?

The only person shot with his handgun was himself. He used it to shoot himself in the head.

[DrDonkeyLove]

Seriously, how many billions of dollars are spent refining assault weapons to maximum efficiency at killing when a pistol, shotgun, or revolver are (according to your argument) just as effective?

Your argument just makes absolutely zero sense. That's why no one responded. Money talks...

1 - You sound like a fool. You were in the military - what were the conditions & standards for development of a soldier's rifle?
Are the needs of a mass shooter similar?

They are.

The mass shooters themselves know this, even if you don't. It's the weapon of choice, for good reason.

Case in point, the Sandy Hook shooter had an AR-ish weapon, two handguns, and a shotgun. Guess what he used for 99.5% of his shots?

The only person shot with his handgun was himself. He used it to shoot himself in the head.

I think the Santa Fe murderer's choice of a shotgun and a .38 revolver proves that a lot of innocents can be quickly slain with guns that don't qualify as "weapons of war". It complicates the "common sense" gun control arguments that focus on prohibiting/greatly restricting/confiscating AR type weapons.

There was nothing mechanically hi-tech about this particular carnage. Same is true of much of what takes place on our streets daily. This particular mass murder may have been committed with grandpa's old bird hunting shotgun and the handgun he used to put down the family dog down by the crick.

However....something chemically high tech may have been involved. I'm regularly ignored on this issue, but what pharmacological cocktails were coursing through this young maniac's veins? Will we ever know? Will any politician on either side of the issue demand answers?

Big Pharma's K Street lobbyists say, nah. Doctor's lobbyists say, nah. Most of the populace just go guns good or guns bad tribal. Depressing.....maybe some mood mending meds will help

[Herv100]

I see nafod is still an old, broke-dick pussy

[johno]

The mass shooters themselves know this, even if you don't. It's the weapon of choice, for good reason.
...

There's every reason to think they study & mimic their predecessors, down to the black trench coat & propane tank devices.

Do you have any evidence that the shooters study ballistics? Then almost uniformly select a round so underpowered that many states forbid its use on deer?

Seriously, would things improve if the shooters moved to a Ruger Ranch Rifle in 7.62?
Or 9mm handgun, ala Virginia Tech, the third worst mass shooting in the US?

Things would very likely get worse.

[Fat Cat]

I still can't understand Nafod's obsession with "mass shooters" when they are fundamentally a footnote to the broad pattern of gun violence in America.

[johno]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/real-solut ... 1519168921

The most predictable fallout from last week’s school shooting in Florida is the impassioned reactions from both sides of the gun divide, which guarantee nothing will change. Gun-control supporters demonize firearms and Second Amendment supporters, blaming the National Rifle Association for mass murder. Conservatives see their critics as caring little about the Constitution and knowing next to nothing about firearms.

But people of good faith can find common ground and help reduce gun violence in the U.S.

Let’s begin with a statistic: The number of guns in America rose nearly 50% between 1993 and 2013. During the same period, gun homicides fell by nearly 50%. The notion that more guns mean more crime is simplistic and false.

Yet we still see frightening outbursts of armed violence—whether sudden, as in 17 dead within minutes at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, or in slow motion, as in 20 dead during January in Chicago—an improvement from last year.

A University of Chicago study found that only 3% of Windy City gun crimes were committed with legally purchased guns. A federal study in 2004 put the percentage of gun crimes committed with legal guns at 11%. By and large the problem isn’t guns—it’s that people who shouldn’t have them are getting them and using them.

As for mass shootings, almost all of them have involved mentally ill young men. Some used pistols, some used rifles, some had both—but as with street crime, people who shouldn’t have weapons got them.

So, what to do? Here are three suggestions.

First, to reduce street violence, dramatically increase penalties for stealing a firearm. According to FBI statistics, in the four years from 2012-15, 1.2 million guns were stolen from people, and another 22,000 were stolen from gun stores. Criminals respond to incentives like everybody else. A mandatory four-year prison term for illegally possessing a firearm, and a six-year term per gun for selling stolen firearms, would, if seriously enforced, escalate the risk of the crime past the point of anticipated benefits. Sentences should be so severe that a burglar would avoid taking the victim’s guns rather than face the consequences of being caught with them. Similarly harsh sentences should apply to felons carrying firearms. We don’t need a war on guns, but we do need a war on illegal guns. This will save more lives than any other single policy change.

Second, enforce the law against straw purchases of handguns. A straw purchase happens when someone who is legally allowed to buy a gun walks into a store, completes the required paperwork, takes possession of the firearm—and then gives it or sells it to someone who isn’t allowed to own one. Federal law makes it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

But those laws are rarely enforced. In the eyes of the federal government (and straw purchasers) it’s a low priority. If that changed, illegal guns from straw purchases would start to dry up. This requires no change in laws, only priorities. The president and attorney general could make it happen immediately.

Third, find practical, legal ways of preventing seriously mentally ill people from acquiring firearms.
...

[nafod]

The mass shooters themselves know this, even if you don't. It's the weapon of choice, for good reason.
...

There's every reason to think they study & mimic their predecessors, down to the black trench coat & propane tank devices.

The shooters in Vegas and Orlando or Dallas were not in black trench coat and carrying propane tanks

Do you have any evidence that the shooters study ballistics? Then almost uniformly select a round so underpowered that many states forbid its use on deer?

Seriously, would things improve if the shooters moved to a Ruger Ranch Rifle in 7.62?
Or 9mm handgun, ala Virginia Tech, the third worst mass shooting in the US?

Things would very likely get worse.

5.56 rounds are proven quite effective against kindergardners, high school seniors, gay clubbers like Herv100, and country music fans. In close to long range. When the primary factor in body count is how much ammo you can carry, light is good.

Johno, your arguments simply don't pass the bullshit test. But don't take it from me...here's a guy arguing for why you want an AR instead of a shotgun or pistol. For home defense, but applies directly to assaulting a public site.

One of today’s best-known and most respected trainers in the art of gun fighting, retired Sgt./Maj. Kyle E. Lamb, spent more than 21 years with the U.S. Army—more than 15 years of which were in Special Operations.

...The AR is very easy to shoot. Head out to the range and test my theory. Ask anyone who wants to join in on the fun to try shooting a scored event, under pressure, with a pistol at a range. After you see their performance, try the same with an AR, I will bet money you see much better control of the system. Men and women alike just shoot better with a carbine than with a pistol. As long as the carbine is light enough for the shooter to handle properly, the learning curve will be straight-up.

...a reliable semi-automatic is king. That is why I would not pick the shotgun...

The AR is unbelievably versatile, from contact shooting distances out to 300 yds., the carbine will outperform the pistol...

If you are among those who say, “If I can’t fix the problem with my eight rounds of .45 ACP, it can’t be fixed,” I say please grab a big old mug of black coffee and wake up from your dream. No one knows who, what, when, where or why the fight will start—blowhard statements only degrade an intelligent conversation.

Once again, focusing on reality, 5.56x45 mm NATO ammunition just plain works. There are literally thousands upon thousands of terrorists who have met their ends because of it. Apparently, they did not have a chance to read the latest gun blog decrying the lack of stopping power from the 5.56.

The AR has little to no recoil. Even when fired from a strong- or support-hand-only position, its recoil is negligible. Pistols and shotguns recoil far more than most .223 carbines. Less recoil means more time on target—that is a good thing when the shooting starts.

[nafod]

I still can't understand Nafod's obsession with "mass shooters" when they are fundamentally a footnote to the broad pattern of gun violence in America.

I'll give you the short answer. These mass shootings are terrorist attacks. Their purpose is terror, and the fact that they aren't wearing turbans and yelling dirka-dirka changes nothing. So I treat them the same.

The long answer is I worked for three years and deployed from my family overseas for a full year (what's the longest you've ever been away from yours?) on a counter-terror mission, where in my mind we were killing them over there to avoid a Beslan Massacre over here. They'd have loved to broke into a school and kill scores of childen, like they did in Beslan.

I got home, and Sandy Hook occurred. Kindergartners gunned down while cowering under tables. And then more. And then more terror attacks. And guess who the enemy is? Us. We are shooting ourselves. Not them. Six per year die from foreign terrorists. Not even worth an article in the paper.

Up to that point I was your standard low information gun rights supporter, digesting what was fed to me. But intellectual honesty demanded I needed to drop all of that shit and get the source facts, and let them take me where they take me, even if it pisses people off. I guess I could have been a coward like Herv100 and go along to get along, regurgitating the circle-jerks from AR15.com, but that path is for chicken-shits who lack the courage of their convictions.

[Turdacious]

These mass shootings are terrorist attacks. Their purpose is terror, and the fact that they aren't wearing turbans and yelling dirka-dirka changes nothing. So I treat them the same.

That's an interesting definition. I generally only consider something terrorism when there's some sort of political angle attached.

[johno]

here's a guy arguing for why you want an AR instead of a shotgun or pistol. For home defense...

Do you think the .223/5.56 is some kind of unique tool for home defense?




(I'll get to the rest of your argument later.)

[nafod]

here's a guy arguing for why you want an AR instead of a shotgun or pistol. For home defense...

Do you think the .223/5.56 is some kind of unique tool for home defense?

(I'll get to the rest of your argument later.)

Here's the full article. I couldn't find one on "What is the best weapon for assaulting a high school" for obvious reasons. Contact the author if you really want to debate the key points.

https://www.americanrifleman.org/articl ... ts-opinion

[johno]

You cited Lamb as the authority. Do you stand by his statement that .223/5.56 is the best round for self defense?

Simple question that poses a problem for you.

[JimZipCode]

Simple question that poses a problem for you.

Is the "problem" that depriving gun owners of the very BEST ROUND for self-defense is a direct violation of every principle of liberty that we live by, enshrined in the Second Amendment?

[johno]

Simple question that poses a problem for you.

Is the "problem" that depriving gun owners of the very BEST ROUND for self-defense is a direct violation of every principle of liberty that we live by, enshrined in the Second Amendment?

No. There's a Constitutional argument to be made. But I haven't made it because it's pretty geeky, and irrelevant to most people's concerns.


I'll let nafod answer first.

[nafod]

You cited Lamb as the authority. Do you stand by his statement that .223/5.56 is the best round for self defense?

I believe his article lays out a clear argument for the weapon system he describes (AR-15 chambered in 5.56x45 mm, 30 round magazine) being the best weapon for assaulting a high school or public venue and maximizing the body count.

[johno]

You cited Lamb as the authority. Do you stand by his statement that .223/5.56 is the best round for self defense?

I believe his article lays out a clear argument for the weapon system he describes (AR-15 chambered in 5.56x45 mm, 30 round magazine) being the best weapon for assaulting a high school or public venue and maximizing the body count.

OK. Do you stand by the statement that AR-15 in 5.56 is the best system for self defense?

'Cause you appear to be backpedalling on this.

[grip junky]

You cited Lamb as the authority. Do you stand by his statement that .223/5.56 is the best round for self defense?

I believe his article lays out a clear argument for the weapon system he describes (AR-15 chambered in 5.56x45 mm, 30 round magazine) being the best weapon for assaulting a high school or public venue and maximizing the body count.

OK. Do you stand by the statement that AR-15 in 5.56 is the best system for self defense?

'Cause you appear to be backpedalling on this.

I am a come take it from my cold dead hand kind of guy, but Let it go your point is not a very good one, it is very Garm like.

[johno]

I am a come take it from my cold dead hand kind of guy, but Let it go your point is not a very good one, it is very Garm like.

It's a great point. I've been belaboring it because nafod is squirming. But I'll finish with this post.

*****

Bottom line - At any given range and shooter's capabilities, the same system that is optimal for self defense is often optimal for murder.

If you deprive murderers of the AR, you also deprive law abiding citizens of a good self defense option. Kyle Lamb agrees.


IMO re: Lethality & Effectiveness* **

Phone booth range - Pistol. Incidentally, a pistol, not an AR, was used in the worst school shooting in US history, at Virginia Tech.

Beyond phone booth, out to 15-20+ yards - Shotgun. This range applies to most classrooms. The recent Texas school shooter used this. And reportedly reloaded at least twice in his brief (approximately four minute) rampage that School Resource officers ended by return fire.

30+ yards - Rifle in any one of a number of calibers: .5.56, 6.5, 6.8, 7.62 and up. The rifle was used by the Las Vegas shooter.




*Calibers/Gauges can be adjusted for shooter's stature.
**Many criminals usually don't use the most lethal option, for concealment or out of ignorance.