3 mass shooting, three semi automtic rifles

[BlackSand]

I was making a point. A point that obviously went way over your head.

You were making a point that was based on an assumed authority you don't have.
I was simply indicating I don't give a damn how tough you think you are.

You can talk all day ... That isn't going to change anything about how far your proposal gets.
That I understand ... And sorry if it escapes you.

.

 

[Skull Pilot]

In China and Japan they have mass slashings with knives. Did they ban knives?

Question A: what was the knife designed to do?

Question B: what is the semi-automatic firing system designed to do.

Quit looking for equivalence among kitchen implements and weapons designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible.

The knife is designed to cut, which is what it was used for.

The semi-automatic firing system is to reduce reloading time.

How many of those rifles kill people in a given year?

None.

Here we go. Guns don't kill people, people do.

Therefore we should allow people who want to kill people have the fastest, most deadly, weapons with reduced loading time.

Good thinking, Spot

If you were the one standing outside that church in Texas, hearing people die inside that building, wouldn't you want to have a weapon equal to what the the shooter had?

Of course not, you piece of crap gun grabbers are too much of a coward and would just call 911 and hide, listening as more innocent men, women, and children were massacred.

I'll bet you would be so proud of yourself!

I'd want to know that I did every thing possible to keep the killing weapons out of the public.

This argument that we can't ban these weapons because we need to have therm to fight those who do is the dumbest argument ever made.

I would call 911 then grab my gun, make sure of my target, & take him out. I don't need an assault type rifle to do it. There is but one target.

You don't get to decide what other people need.

 

[Nosmo King]

An unimpeded domestic arms race? This guy has a revolver therefore I need a pistol. He just got a pistol, therefore I need a rifle. He just got a rifle, therefore I need a semi-automatic rifle. And on and on and on.

You bear arms by carrying a revolver. No one wants to infringe that right. But once you bear an AR-15 with a thirty round clip, you actually should be enlisted in a well regulated militia. Unless you want the other guy to bear a flamethrower or a rocket propelled grenade launcher or stage a mortar or howitzer in his yard.

 

[Skull Pilot]

An unimpeded domestic arms race? This guy has a revolver therefore I need a pistol. He just got a pistol, therefore I need a rifle. He just got a rifle, therefore I need a semi-automatic rifle. And on and on and on.

You bear arms by carrying a revolver. No one wants to infringe that right. But once you bear an AR-15 with a thirty round clip, you actually should be enlisted in a well regulated militia. Unless you want the other guy to bear a flamethrower or a rocket propelled grenade launcher or stage a mortar or howitzer in his yard.

A revolver is a pistol.

 

[BlackSand]

An unimpeded domestic arms race? This guy has a revolver therefore I need a pistol. He just got a pistol, therefore I need a rifle. He just got a rifle, therefore I need a semi-automatic rifle. And on and on and on.

You bear arms by carrying a revolver. No one wants to infringe that right. But once you bear an AR-15 with a thirty round clip, you actually should be enlisted in a well regulated militia. Unless you want the other guy to bear a flamethrower or a rocket propelled grenade launcher or stage a mortar or howitzer in his yard.

It isn't so much an arms race ... We already have the semi-automatic weapons.
In fact gun owners aren't asking for more than what we are already allowed ... We are telling people like you we are not interested in giving up more.

None of us are asking your opinion on what you would like for us to keep.
We aren't asking you to pass new laws ... We aren't asking you for your permission ... We don't need it.

Sooner or later you are going to understand it is you who needs us to agree ... Not the other way around ... My guess is that it will be later.

.

 

[Skull Pilot]

An unimpeded domestic arms race? This guy has a revolver therefore I need a pistol. He just got a pistol, therefore I need a rifle. He just got a rifle, therefore I need a semi-automatic rifle. And on and on and on.

You bear arms by carrying a revolver. No one wants to infringe that right. But once you bear an AR-15 with a thirty round clip, you actually should be enlisted in a well regulated militia. Unless you want the other guy to bear a flamethrower or a rocket propelled grenade launcher or stage a mortar or howitzer in his yard.

It isn't so much an arms race ... We already have the semi-automatic weapons.
In fact gun owners aren't asking for more than what we are already allowed ... We are telling people like you we are not interested in giving up more.

None of us are asking your opinion on what you would like for us to keep.
We aren't asking you to pass new laws ... We aren't asking you for your permission ... We don't need it.

Sooner or later you are going to understand it is you who needs us to agree ... Not the other way around ... My guess is that it will be later.

.

Semiautomatic rifles have been around since the 1860's

 

[BlackSand]

Semiautomatic rifles have been around since the 1860's

I am just trying to make the point that if I want another semi-automatic "scary gun" I can go buy one today.
They are trying to suggest they have a position with leverage to barter from.

I keep telling them that they need to stop wasting their time trying to convince people who are already exercising their Constitutionally protected rights.
If anything ... They need to be talking to their Congress Critters ... And we will cross that bridge if and when their pleas actually get somewhere.

I am certainly not against people expressing their desires to their Representatives ... That's their obligation.
Perhaps it will also give their Representatives the opportunity to help them understand what is actually necessary to achieve their desired goals.

I mean they aren't listening to us ... Since they want to the government to have all that unchecked authority ... Maybe they will listen to them ...

.

 

[Nosmo King]

An unimpeded domestic arms race? This guy has a revolver therefore I need a pistol. He just got a pistol, therefore I need a rifle. He just got a rifle, therefore I need a semi-automatic rifle. And on and on and on.

You bear arms by carrying a revolver. No one wants to infringe that right. But once you bear an AR-15 with a thirty round clip, you actually should be enlisted in a well regulated militia. Unless you want the other guy to bear a flamethrower or a rocket propelled grenade launcher or stage a mortar or howitzer in his yard.

A revolver is a pistol.

I've been indoctrinated tomunderstand a revolver is a gun fitted with a barrel shaped loader which revolves in order to put a round into the firing chamber. A pistol is a,handgun loaded by means of amvertically oriented magazine usually fitted into the grip.

If you want to play in the sandbox of gun semantics, you are demonstrating a lack of imagination to design a solution to gun violence.

 

[Nosmo King]

An unimpeded domestic arms race? This guy has a revolver therefore I need a pistol. He just got a pistol, therefore I need a rifle. He just got a rifle, therefore I need a semi-automatic rifle. And on and on and on.

You bear arms by carrying a revolver. No one wants to infringe that right. But once you bear an AR-15 with a thirty round clip, you actually should be enlisted in a well regulated militia. Unless you want the other guy to bear a flamethrower or a rocket propelled grenade launcher or stage a mortar or howitzer in his yard.

It isn't so much an arms race ... We already have the semi-automatic weapons.
In fact gun owners aren't asking for more than what we are already allowed ... We are telling people like you we are not interested in giving up more.

None of us are asking your opinion on what you would like for us to keep.
We aren't asking you to pass new laws ... We aren't asking you for your permission ... We don't need it.

Sooner or later you are going to understand it is you who needs us to agree ... Not the other way around ... My guess is that it will be later.

.

Then please answer this: given that mass shootings are a problem in our society andgiven that the reason we call them mass shootings is the horrendous body count, and the reason for these horrendous body counts is the variety of weaponry involved, can a responsible correlation be drawn between the type of weaponry and the kernel of our problem with mass shootings?

And if such a correlation can be drawn, should we, as a responsible society address those specific weapons?

 

[BlackSand]

Then please answer this: given that mass shootings are a problem in our society andgiven that the reason we call them mass shootings is the horrendous body count, and the reason for these horrendous body counts is the variety of weaponry involved, can a responsible correlation be drawn between the type of weaponry and the kernel of our problem with mass shootings?

And if such a correlation can be drawn, should we, as a responsible society address those specific weapons?

I am not willing to sacrifice my ability to exercise my Constitutionally protected right to purchase or continue to bear the firearms I own in order for you to feel more secure.

That's the simple answer ... And it leaves you with options.
Contact your Representatives ... Perhaps they are more interested in addressing your concerns.
I have contacted mine and let them know how I want them to represent me.

.

 

[Nosmo King]

Then please answer this: given that mass shootings are a problem in our society andgiven that the reason we call them mass shootings is the horrendous body count, and the reason for these horrendous body counts is the variety of weaponry involved, can a responsible correlation be drawn between the type of weaponry and the kernel of our problem with mass shootings?

And if such a correlation can be drawn, should we, as a responsible society address those specific weapons?

I am not willing to sacrifice my ability to exercise my Constitutionally protected right to purchase or continue to bear the firearms I own in order for you to feel more secure.

That's the simple answer ... And it leaves you with options.
Contact your Representatives ... Perhaps they are more interested in addressing your concerns.
I have contacted mine and let them know how I want them to represent me.

.

So you're saying that you should be able to bear the weapon of your choice as should everyone else. If those weapons are responsible for magnifying body counts during mass shooting situations, so be it. That's merely the cost of doing business in a society that permits such weapons to be held by anyone.

 

[BlackSand]

So you're saying that you should be able to bear the weapon of your choice ...

No sweetie ... I am saying that I am able to bear the firearms of my choice ... And if you want to change that you need to contact your Representatives ...
Wanting to or whether or not I should isn't part of the equation ... I already can and do own the firearms you are talking about.

.

 

[Skull Pilot]

An unimpeded domestic arms race? This guy has a revolver therefore I need a pistol. He just got a pistol, therefore I need a rifle. He just got a rifle, therefore I need a semi-automatic rifle. And on and on and on.

You bear arms by carrying a revolver. No one wants to infringe that right. But once you bear an AR-15 with a thirty round clip, you actually should be enlisted in a well regulated militia. Unless you want the other guy to bear a flamethrower or a rocket propelled grenade launcher or stage a mortar or howitzer in his yard.

A revolver is a pistol.

I've been indoctrinated tomunderstand a revolver is a gun fitted with a barrel shaped loader which revolves in order to put a round into the firing chamber. A pistol is a,handgun loaded by means of amvertically oriented magazine usually fitted into the grip.

If you want to play in the sandbox of gun semantics, you are demonstrating a lack of imagination to design a solution to gun violence.

A revolver is a pistol

All revolvers are pistols but not all pistols are revolvers

You can't seem to understand that words mean things.

And I really don't think we will ever end violence of any kind because I have come to the conclusion that people are the most violent, dangerous and unpredictable animals to have ever walked this planet

 

[KissMy]

You gotta love those Quick Change High Capacity Mags!

Help!... Help!!... Help!!! - To Late, Tough Shit!

~ 25,000 Gun Lovers & Police they Worship Running Scared, Did Not Shoot Back, Failed to Stop the Shooter! ~ 600 of them stopped those bullets though.

 

[SavannahMann]

Target choice is up to the person not the gun.

The purpose of any tool be it a firearm or a rock tied to a stick is determined by the user of that tool.

For example my shotguns have 3 purposes which I determine.
1 Skeet shooting
2 the occasional pheasant hunt
3 defense of home and property


you may notice that killing people isn't on the list

Can the same be said in every instance?

I don't want you to be deprived of the shooting sports. I want the assault weapons off the streets.

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

Only if you are an idiot! I suppose using that logic, a rock sitting in the road is a ballistic missile.

Using your incorrect definition, that would make my .40 caliber handgun an assault weapon. Now can you see the idiocy in your statement?

You would be content to argue semantics rather than responsibly address the problem.

Here's the accepted tactic: first argue that no law can totally prevent gun violence and, therefore, no laws need be written. Next, argue that gun legislation is prima facea unconstitutional and therefore should not be tried. Then argue that guns are benign, inanimate objects as safe as a ball of yarn and anyone who is not immersed deeply in the gun culture are poseurs with no valid argument to offer.

This attitude by default makes you complicit in mass shootings. Lacking the imagination to craft a compromise, you are forcing society to factor in the blood of innocent victims as the cost of doing business in a gun loving society.

Call me an idiot all damn day long. It won't make your argument any more legitimate.

There are several problems, problems that people are trying to tell you about, and you refuse to listen. It is said that the Devil is in the Details. In this case, the Devil is against you, because the details you are choosing to ignore, are vitally important.

First, the weapon you all are talking about is the AR platform chambered for the 5.56 MM NATO round. It is not the most leathal choice. It’s not in the top ten. It might make the list of the top 100 most lethal rounds, but only if you exclude exotic rounds that are not in widespread use.

Let’s start with Las Vegas. There were more than 500 injured, and 58 dead not counting the shooter who offed himself. That is a lethal rating of one in ten. You may want to argue that is not Germaine, but it is. Because the 5.56 round is not designed to kill. This is one of those details that you are ignoring. The 5.56 round was chosen for a number of reasons for the military. Lethality was not one of those criteria.

First, the truth is that a vast majority of rounds are fired in suppressive efforts. In other words, the soldier is shooting in the general direction of the enemy in an effort to pin them down, to keep them from shooting the soldier. The human instinct to duck is very strong when you hear the zipping of bullets flying by. The 5.56 round was lighter, and allowed the soldier to carry more ammunition to fire even more rounds at the enemy in an effort to keep their heads down. Instead of eighty, or one hundred rounds of .308, the soldiers could carry three hundred rounds of 5.56.

Second. The 5.56 round created what is called “Military significant wounds”. This is preferred on a battlefield. If I kill an enemy, then his mates want revenge, but also don’t have to worry about him anymore. If I wound that enemy, his mates hear him screaming in pain, they see him bleeding, and possibly dying. It takes two of those enemy soldiers to carry the wounded man away. It takes a third soldier to carry the litter bearers weapons and equipment. One wound can remove three or four soldiers from the battle.

If the enemy ignores the wounded guy, then the screams work on their minds. They become afraid of being that guy, of screaming in agony as they lay dying. They are more reluctant to stick their heads up, more reluctant to do something courageous, and that results in fewer casualties on our side because of weakened morale on the enemy side.

Third. Ease of use. The 5.56 round does not have much power, so it does not have much kick. It makes it easier for smaller people to shoot the rifle. The rifle can be lighter, and easier for the soldier to carry. Now, one of the problems we had when the standard round was .30 Caliber, was that our allies who were smaller in stature couldn’t handle the rifles as easily. That was one of the reasons they developed the great grandfather of your “Assault Weapons” definition. The .30 Cal Carbine. This fired a hot pistol cartridge, so it could be smaller, lighter, and more easily used by the indigenous peoples. Early Pictures from Vietnam show the Vietnamese troops carrying this carbine. We gave it to the allies from nations where their physical stature was not as large as our own. Our own troops carried it during World War II as well as Korea and Vietnam.

The M-1 Garand was heavy, and had a powerful kick. The M-14 chamberd for the almost identical cartridge .308 was just as heavy, and had just as powerful a recoil.

By the way, both of those rifles, are far more lethal than the AR that is scaring you.

The devil is in the details. I told you that to begin with. Roughly speaking, one in ten of those shot in Vegas was killed. Again, that’s about average. It is hard to kill someone with that particular rifle cartridge. You have to hit them in a vital organ, head or heart, or clip an artery to get them to bleed out fast enough to kill them. Generally speaking of those wounded people get to a hospital alive, they have a 95% chance of survival. Not very lethal.

Let’s say you ban these semi-automatic rifles and pistols with these scary high capacity magazines. Do you think that people will not move to the larger calibers, the ones we have already explained are in fact far more lethal? Companies that are now making the popular AR platform will shift to the larger weapons. It might take them as much as two weeks to retool and start production. We’ll have a flurry of M-14 type rifles with the Ten Round magazine. But where perhaps three would die from the AR 30 round magazine, now five will die statistically speaking from the M-14 type weapon. That rifle has a 50% kill rate if you are shot by it.

So instead of saving lives, you’ll actually be killing more people.

I know, this is all just nonsense to you. But it is true. The Special Forces, the guys who have to have one shot one kill if at all possible have walked away from the 5.56 for the most part. They now use this. .458 SOCOM - Wikipedia

Much bigger bullet, much bigger hole in the baddie, and much more likely for the one shot one kill.

The FBI is switching pistols again. This time they’re abandoning the .40 for the less powerful 9MM. The reason? The cops miss their targets about 70% of the time in a shooting situation. Yes, you read that right. Three rounds out of ten will hit the baddie on average. The larger capacity allows for the cops to fire more rounds, and increase the chances that one of those hits will stop the baddie, or perhaps kill them.

Look at the reports of the Cops shooting anyone, Mike Brown. The bullets were all over his body. That was at practically point blank range. The cop was literally right on top of him and still had to empty the magazine because he couldn’t hit a vital organ reliably.

Get rid of those high capacity magazines, and the people will switch to more powerful rounds. Instead of a 9MM which you have an 80% chance of surviving, they’ll switch to a .357 Magnum, a round that is literally twice as powerful as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 ACP of the famed 1911 pistols. Those cartridges tend to stop in the human body, but the .357 plows right through and keeps on going.

If you want more lethal rounds on the street, focus on capacity. I’d prefer more wounded, than dead. But it’s the details that you need to learn to speak logically about these issues. Because I’d rather get shot with a 5.56 round any day than a .338 Lapua. I won’t survive the Lapua round if I am hit anywhere in the torso. I’ve got about one chance in five of surviving the AR round. With the Lapua, even if the round does not hit a vital organ, I’m liable to bleed out in less than two minutes.

The AR is not a magic wand of death. It is not even a very effective rifle. It is popular for the same reasons the military choose it. Not much kick, easy to shoot, ammunition is cheap, and plentiful, very accurate for it’s weight and design. Reasonably reliable all things considered.

For the record. Another of those devilish details. The 5.56 round, is a really fast .22 caliber. The original cartridge was the .223 Remington. Intended to be used to hunt very small deer. I use the classic 30.06 round for that task. That round is twice as powerful, literally again, as the .223 or 5.56. That’s the cartridge where you have one chance in two of surviving if you get shot in the torso with it.

It will make a big comeback as someone starts making the old M-1 Garands again if you ban those scary “Assault” weapons. The .308 will tear through two people with leathal injuries to both with ease. Why do you want those to become the weapon of choice? Let the people keep shooting our citizens with the least effective cartridge. It’s better for all of us if they stick with the more useless choice. We then have a much better chance of survival.

 

[SavannahMann]

You gotta love those Quick Change High Capacity Mags!

Help!... Help!!... Help!!! - To Late, Tough Shit!

~ 25,000 Gun Lovers & Police they Worship Running Scared, Did Not Shoot Back, Failed to Stop the Shooter! ~ 600 of them stopped those bullets though.

You understand nothing I see. The shooter was nearly 500 yards away. That is well out of range of any pistol shooter with the possible exception of some freak. Concealed weapons tend to be shorter, or perhaps I should say pistols.

Pistols and shotguns tend to have maximum effective ranges of less than 100 yards, or one fifth the distance in question. A shotgun loaded with buckshot is useless at that range. A shotgun loaded with slugs might hit at a hundred yards.

If Ignorance is a virtue, you are practically a saint.

 

[KissMy]

You gotta love those Quick Change High Capacity Mags!

Help!... Help!!... Help!!! - To Late, Tough Shit!

~ 25,000 Gun Lovers & Police they Worship Running Scared, Did Not Shoot Back, Failed to Stop the Shooter! ~ 600 of them stopped those bullets though.

You understand nothing I see. The shooter was nearly 500 yards away. That is well out of range of any pistol shooter with the possible exception of some freak. Concealed weapons tend to be shorter, or perhaps I should say pistols.

Pistols and shotguns tend to have maximum effective ranges of less than 100 yards, or one fifth the distance in question. A shotgun loaded with buckshot is useless at that range. A shotgun loaded with slugs might hit at a hundred yards.

If Ignorance is a virtue, you are practically a saint.

You are so clueless. You think the shooter should have moved in closer so you could have a better shot?...LOL He thanks you for letting him have all those quick change 100 round mags so he could kill more before they could all run away or stop him. He had a real blast firing off all that ammo making you scream, duck, crawl, run, cry & pay. But it's only fun for so long, then he got tired of waiting on you pussies & shot himself.

I saw plenty of your "police heros" there with rifles that could have done the job. Nothing but pussies!

 

[SavannahMann]

You gotta love those Quick Change High Capacity Mags!

Help!... Help!!... Help!!! - To Late, Tough Shit!

~ 25,000 Gun Lovers & Police they Worship Running Scared, Did Not Shoot Back, Failed to Stop the Shooter! ~ 600 of them stopped those bullets though.

You understand nothing I see. The shooter was nearly 500 yards away. That is well out of range of any pistol shooter with the possible exception of some freak. Concealed weapons tend to be shorter, or perhaps I should say pistols.

Pistols and shotguns tend to have maximum effective ranges of less than 100 yards, or one fifth the distance in question. A shotgun loaded with buckshot is useless at that range. A shotgun loaded with slugs might hit at a hundred yards.

If Ignorance is a virtue, you are practically a saint.

You are so clueless. You think the shooter should have moved in closer so you could have a better shot?...LOL He thanks you for letting him have all those quick change 100 round mags so he could kill more before they could all run away or stop him. He had a real blast firing off all that ammo making you scream, duck, crawl, run, cry & pay. But it's only fun for so long, then he got tired of waiting on you pussies & shot himself.

I saw plenty of your "police heros" there with rifles that could have done the job. Nothing but pussies!

If anyone had pulled a pistol and started firing at the shooter at that range, you would be on here ranting and raving about out of control concealed carry people endangering the public by spraying as may rounds about as the shooter. The shooter was out of range of any handgun. That fact meant those who were carrying, including the cops, were smarter than you will ever be. You see, they knew not to fire wildly about.

If you had a tenth of the knowledge that you have of passionate belief, you would know that one of the tenants of safe firearm handling is not to fire until you have a positive target.

Oh, and before you go much further with the whole I love cops thing, you should know I am one of the most often heard voices decrying police corruption and insisting on reform.

Now that your ignorance has once again been laid bare, would you like to wisely slink off and remain silent? I’m betting you will instead toss out more insults and declare again, in your own unique way, that concealed carry is a waste.

Because your asinine argument is that concealed carry of handguns is not a perfect answer in every situation, it must not be a good answer in any situation. That is asinine as I said. In a way, it’s like arguing that because plane seats don’t bounce out of cornfields, making the seat cushion a floatation device is just a waste of time.

Nothing is perfect for every imaginable situation. All you can do is increase your chances in as many situations as possible. Cirrus Aircraft has parachutes built in. Yet, people still die in plane crashes. They’re still injured even while flying the Cirrus plane. The reason? The Parachute is better than nothing in case of an emergency, but it is not a one size fits all answer to every emergency.

That is the same truth with any carry weapon. It may not suit every situation you could possibly find yourself in, but it will be there and increase your chances of survival in more than a few situations.

That is why I am decrying you as an ignorant ass. Because you have strongly held and passionate beliefs based upon erroneous theories that are not matched by facts, or truth. It shows you have no knowledge of the issue, but very strongly held beliefs.

 

[Nosmo King]

Can the same be said in every instance?

I don't want you to be deprived of the shooting sports. I want the assault weapons off the streets.

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

Only if you are an idiot! I suppose using that logic, a rock sitting in the road is a ballistic missile.

Using your incorrect definition, that would make my .40 caliber handgun an assault weapon. Now can you see the idiocy in your statement?

You would be content to argue semantics rather than responsibly address the problem.

Here's the accepted tactic: first argue that no law can totally prevent gun violence and, therefore, no laws need be written. Next, argue that gun legislation is prima facea unconstitutional and therefore should not be tried. Then argue that guns are benign, inanimate objects as safe as a ball of yarn and anyone who is not immersed deeply in the gun culture are poseurs with no valid argument to offer.

This attitude by default makes you complicit in mass shootings. Lacking the imagination to craft a compromise, you are forcing society to factor in the blood of innocent victims as the cost of doing business in a gun loving society.

Call me an idiot all damn day long. It won't make your argument any more legitimate.

There are several problems, problems that people are trying to tell you about, and you refuse to listen. It is said that the Devil is in the Details. In this case, the Devil is against you, because the details you are choosing to ignore, are vitally important.

First, the weapon you all are talking about is the AR platform chambered for the 5.56 MM NATO round. It is not the most leathal choice. It’s not in the top ten. It might make the list of the top 100 most lethal rounds, but only if you exclude exotic rounds that are not in widespread use.

Let’s start with Las Vegas. There were more than 500 injured, and 58 dead not counting the shooter who offed himself. That is a lethal rating of one in ten. You may want to argue that is not Germaine, but it is. Because the 5.56 round is not designed to kill. This is one of those details that you are ignoring. The 5.56 round was chosen for a number of reasons for the military. Lethality was not one of those criteria.

First, the truth is that a vast majority of rounds are fired in suppressive efforts. In other words, the soldier is shooting in the general direction of the enemy in an effort to pin them down, to keep them from shooting the soldier. The human instinct to duck is very strong when you hear the zipping of bullets flying by. The 5.56 round was lighter, and allowed the soldier to carry more ammunition to fire even more rounds at the enemy in an effort to keep their heads down. Instead of eighty, or one hundred rounds of .308, the soldiers could carry three hundred rounds of 5.56.

Second. The 5.56 round created what is called “Military significant wounds”. This is preferred on a battlefield. If I kill an enemy, then his mates want revenge, but also don’t have to worry about him anymore. If I wound that enemy, his mates hear him screaming in pain, they see him bleeding, and possibly dying. It takes two of those enemy soldiers to carry the wounded man away. It takes a third soldier to carry the litter bearers weapons and equipment. One wound can remove three or four soldiers from the battle.

If the enemy ignores the wounded guy, then the screams work on their minds. They become afraid of being that guy, of screaming in agony as they lay dying. They are more reluctant to stick their heads up, more reluctant to do something courageous, and that results in fewer casualties on our side because of weakened morale on the enemy side.

Third. Ease of use. The 5.56 round does not have much power, so it does not have much kick. It makes it easier for smaller people to shoot the rifle. The rifle can be lighter, and easier for the soldier to carry. Now, one of the problems we had when the standard round was .30 Caliber, was that our allies who were smaller in stature couldn’t handle the rifles as easily. That was one of the reasons they developed the great grandfather of your “Assault Weapons” definition. The .30 Cal Carbine. This fired a hot pistol cartridge, so it could be smaller, lighter, and more easily used by the indigenous peoples. Early Pictures from Vietnam show the Vietnamese troops carrying this carbine. We gave it to the allies from nations where their physical stature was not as large as our own. Our own troops carried it during World War II as well as Korea and Vietnam.

The M-1 Garand was heavy, and had a powerful kick. The M-14 chamberd for the almost identical cartridge .308 was just as heavy, and had just as powerful a recoil.

By the way, both of those rifles, are far more lethal than the AR that is scaring you.

The devil is in the details. I told you that to begin with. Roughly speaking, one in ten of those shot in Vegas was killed. Again, that’s about average. It is hard to kill someone with that particular rifle cartridge. You have to hit them in a vital organ, head or heart, or clip an artery to get them to bleed out fast enough to kill them. Generally speaking of those wounded people get to a hospital alive, they have a 95% chance of survival. Not very lethal.

Let’s say you ban these semi-automatic rifles and pistols with these scary high capacity magazines. Do you think that people will not move to the larger calibers, the ones we have already explained are in fact far more lethal? Companies that are now making the popular AR platform will shift to the larger weapons. It might take them as much as two weeks to retool and start production. We’ll have a flurry of M-14 type rifles with the Ten Round magazine. But where perhaps three would die from the AR 30 round magazine, now five will die statistically speaking from the M-14 type weapon. That rifle has a 50% kill rate if you are shot by it.

So instead of saving lives, you’ll actually be killing more people.

I know, this is all just nonsense to you. But it is true. The Special Forces, the guys who have to have one shot one kill if at all possible have walked away from the 5.56 for the most part. They now use this. .458 SOCOM - Wikipedia

Much bigger bullet, much bigger hole in the baddie, and much more likely for the one shot one kill.

The FBI is switching pistols again. This time they’re abandoning the .40 for the less powerful 9MM. The reason? The cops miss their targets about 70% of the time in a shooting situation. Yes, you read that right. Three rounds out of ten will hit the baddie on average. The larger capacity allows for the cops to fire more rounds, and increase the chances that one of those hits will stop the baddie, or perhaps kill them.

Look at the reports of the Cops shooting anyone, Mike Brown. The bullets were all over his body. That was at practically point blank range. The cop was literally right on top of him and still had to empty the magazine because he couldn’t hit a vital organ reliably.

Get rid of those high capacity magazines, and the people will switch to more powerful rounds. Instead of a 9MM which you have an 80% chance of surviving, they’ll switch to a .357 Magnum, a round that is literally twice as powerful as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 ACP of the famed 1911 pistols. Those cartridges tend to stop in the human body, but the .357 plows right through and keeps on going.

If you want more lethal rounds on the street, focus on capacity. I’d prefer more wounded, than dead. But it’s the details that you need to learn to speak logically about these issues. Because I’d rather get shot with a 5.56 round any day than a .338 Lapua. I won’t survive the Lapua round if I am hit anywhere in the torso. I’ve got about one chance in five of surviving the AR round. With the Lapua, even if the round does not hit a vital organ, I’m liable to bleed out in less than two minutes.

The AR is not a magic wand of death. It is not even a very effective rifle. It is popular for the same reasons the military choose it. Not much kick, easy to shoot, ammunition is cheap, and plentiful, very accurate for it’s weight and design. Reasonably reliable all things considered.

For the record. Another of those devilish details. The 5.56 round, is a really fast .22 caliber. The original cartridge was the .223 Remington. Intended to be used to hunt very small deer. I use the classic 30.06 round for that task. That round is twice as powerful, literally again, as the .223 or 5.56. That’s the cartridge where you have one chance in two of surviving if you get shot in the torso with it.

It will make a big comeback as someone starts making the old M-1 Garands again if you ban those scary “Assault” weapons. The .308 will tear through two people with leathal injuries to both with ease. Why do you want those to become the weapon of choice? Let the people keep shooting our citizens with the least effective cartridge. It’s better for all of us if they stick with the more useless choice. We then have a much better chance of survival.

M

Can the same be said in every instance?

I don't want you to be deprived of the shooting sports. I want the assault weapons off the streets.

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

Only if you are an idiot! I suppose using that logic, a rock sitting in the road is a ballistic missile.

Using your incorrect definition, that would make my .40 caliber handgun an assault weapon. Now can you see the idiocy in your statement?

You would be content to argue semantics rather than responsibly address the problem.

Here's the accepted tactic: first argue that no law can totally prevent gun violence and, therefore, no laws need be written. Next, argue that gun legislation is prima facea unconstitutional and therefore should not be tried. Then argue that guns are benign, inanimate objects as safe as a ball of yarn and anyone who is not immersed deeply in the gun culture are poseurs with no valid argument to offer.

This attitude by default makes you complicit in mass shootings. Lacking the imagination to craft a compromise, you are forcing society to factor in the blood of innocent victims as the cost of doing business in a gun loving society.

Call me an idiot all damn day long. It won't make your argument any more legitimate.

There are several problems, problems that people are trying to tell you about, and you refuse to listen. It is said that the Devil is in the Details. In this case, the Devil is against you, because the details you are choosing to ignore, are vitally important.

First, the weapon you all are talking about is the AR platform chambered for the 5.56 MM NATO round. It is not the most leathal choice. It’s not in the top ten. It might make the list of the top 100 most lethal rounds, but only if you exclude exotic rounds that are not in widespread use.

Let’s start with Las Vegas. There were more than 500 injured, and 58 dead not counting the shooter who offed himself. That is a lethal rating of one in ten. You may want to argue that is not Germaine, but it is. Because the 5.56 round is not designed to kill. This is one of those details that you are ignoring. The 5.56 round was chosen for a number of reasons for the military. Lethality was not one of those criteria.

First, the truth is that a vast majority of rounds are fired in suppressive efforts. In other words, the soldier is shooting in the general direction of the enemy in an effort to pin them down, to keep them from shooting the soldier. The human instinct to duck is very strong when you hear the zipping of bullets flying by. The 5.56 round was lighter, and allowed the soldier to carry more ammunition to fire even more rounds at the enemy in an effort to keep their heads down. Instead of eighty, or one hundred rounds of .308, the soldiers could carry three hundred rounds of 5.56.

Second. The 5.56 round created what is called “Military significant wounds”. This is preferred on a battlefield. If I kill an enemy, then his mates want revenge, but also don’t have to worry about him anymore. If I wound that enemy, his mates hear him screaming in pain, they see him bleeding, and possibly dying. It takes two of those enemy soldiers to carry the wounded man away. It takes a third soldier to carry the litter bearers weapons and equipment. One wound can remove three or four soldiers from the battle.

If the enemy ignores the wounded guy, then the screams work on their minds. They become afraid of being that guy, of screaming in agony as they lay dying. They are more reluctant to stick their heads up, more reluctant to do something courageous, and that results in fewer casualties on our side because of weakened morale on the enemy side.

Third. Ease of use. The 5.56 round does not have much power, so it does not have much kick. It makes it easier for smaller people to shoot the rifle. The rifle can be lighter, and easier for the soldier to carry. Now, one of the problems we had when the standard round was .30 Caliber, was that our allies who were smaller in stature couldn’t handle the rifles as easily. That was one of the reasons they developed the great grandfather of your “Assault Weapons” definition. The .30 Cal Carbine. This fired a hot pistol cartridge, so it could be smaller, lighter, and more easily used by the indigenous peoples. Early Pictures from Vietnam show the Vietnamese troops carrying this carbine. We gave it to the allies from nations where their physical stature was not as large as our own. Our own troops carried it during World War II as well as Korea and Vietnam.

The M-1 Garand was heavy, and had a powerful kick. The M-14 chamberd for the almost identical cartridge .308 was just as heavy, and had just as powerful a recoil.

By the way, both of those rifles, are far more lethal than the AR that is scaring you.

The devil is in the details. I told you that to begin with. Roughly speaking, one in ten of those shot in Vegas was killed. Again, that’s about average. It is hard to kill someone with that particular rifle cartridge. You have to hit them in a vital organ, head or heart, or clip an artery to get them to bleed out fast enough to kill them. Generally speaking of those wounded people get to a hospital alive, they have a 95% chance of survival. Not very lethal.

Let’s say you ban these semi-automatic rifles and pistols with these scary high capacity magazines. Do you think that people will not move to the larger calibers, the ones we have already explained are in fact far more lethal? Companies that are now making the popular AR platform will shift to the larger weapons. It might take them as much as two weeks to retool and start production. We’ll have a flurry of M-14 type rifles with the Ten Round magazine. But where perhaps three would die from the AR 30 round magazine, now five will die statistically speaking from the M-14 type weapon. That rifle has a 50% kill rate if you are shot by it.

So instead of saving lives, you’ll actually be killing more people.

I know, this is all just nonsense to you. But it is true. The Special Forces, the guys who have to have one shot one kill if at all possible have walked away from the 5.56 for the most part. They now use this. .458 SOCOM - Wikipedia

Much bigger bullet, much bigger hole in the baddie, and much more likely for the one shot one kill.

The FBI is switching pistols again. This time they’re abandoning the .40 for the less powerful 9MM. The reason? The cops miss their targets about 70% of the time in a shooting situation. Yes, you read that right. Three rounds out of ten will hit the baddie on average. The larger capacity allows for the cops to fire more rounds, and increase the chances that one of those hits will stop the baddie, or perhaps kill them.

Look at the reports of the Cops shooting anyone, Mike Brown. The bullets were all over his body. That was at practically point blank range. The cop was literally right on top of him and still had to empty the magazine because he couldn’t hit a vital organ reliably.

Get rid of those high capacity magazines, and the people will switch to more powerful rounds. Instead of a 9MM which you have an 80% chance of surviving, they’ll switch to a .357 Magnum, a round that is literally twice as powerful as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 ACP of the famed 1911 pistols. Those cartridges tend to stop in the human body, but the .357 plows right through and keeps on going.

If you want more lethal rounds on the street, focus on capacity. I’d prefer more wounded, than dead. But it’s the details that you need to learn to speak logically about these issues. Because I’d rather get shot with a 5.56 round any day than a .338 Lapua. I won’t survive the Lapua round if I am hit anywhere in the torso. I’ve got about one chance in five of surviving the AR round. With the Lapua, even if the round does not hit a vital organ, I’m liable to bleed out in less than two minutes.

The AR is not a magic wand of death. It is not even a very effective rifle. It is popular for the same reasons the military choose it. Not much kick, easy to shoot, ammunition is cheap, and plentiful, very accurate for it’s weight and design. Reasonably reliable all things considered.

For the record. Another of those devilish details. The 5.56 round, is a really fast .22 caliber. The original cartridge was the .223 Remington. Intended to be used to hunt very small deer. I use the classic 30.06 round for that task. That round is twice as powerful, literally again, as the .223 or 5.56. That’s the cartridge where you have one chance in two of surviving if you get shot in the torso with it.

It will make a big comeback as someone starts making the old M-1 Garands again if you ban those scary “Assault” weapons. The .308 will tear through two people with leathal injuries to both with ease. Why do you want those to become the weapon of choice? Let the people keep shooting our citizens with the least effective cartridge. It’s better for all of us if they stick with the more useless choice. We then have a much better chance of survival.

Can the same be said in every instance?

I don't want you to be deprived of the shooting sports. I want the assault weapons off the streets.

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

Only if you are an idiot! I suppose using that logic, a rock sitting in the road is a ballistic missile.

Using your incorrect definition, that would make my .40 caliber handgun an assault weapon. Now can you see the idiocy in your statement?

You would be content to argue semantics rather than responsibly address the problem.

Here's the accepted tactic: first argue that no law can totally prevent gun violence and, therefore, no laws need be written. Next, argue that gun legislation is prima facea unconstitutional and therefore should not be tried. Then argue that guns are benign, inanimate objects as safe as a ball of yarn and anyone who is not immersed deeply in the gun culture are poseurs with no valid argument to offer.

This attitude by default makes you complicit in mass shootings. Lacking the imagination to craft a compromise, you are forcing society to factor in the blood of innocent victims as the cost of doing business in a gun loving society.

Call me an idiot all damn day long. It won't make your argument any more legitimate.

There are several problems, problems that people are trying to tell you about, and you refuse to listen. It is said that the Devil is in the Details. In this case, the Devil is against you, because the details you are choosing to ignore, are vitally important.

First, the weapon you all are talking about is the AR platform chambered for the 5.56 MM NATO round. It is not the most leathal choice. It’s not in the top ten. It might make the list of the top 100 most lethal rounds, but only if you exclude exotic rounds that are not in widespread use.

Let’s start with Las Vegas. There were more than 500 injured, and 58 dead not counting the shooter who offed himself. That is a lethal rating of one in ten. You may want to argue that is not Germaine, but it is. Because the 5.56 round is not designed to kill. This is one of those details that you are ignoring. The 5.56 round was chosen for a number of reasons for the military. Lethality was not one of those criteria.

First, the truth is that a vast majority of rounds are fired in suppressive efforts. In other words, the soldier is shooting in the general direction of the enemy in an effort to pin them down, to keep them from shooting the soldier. The human instinct to duck is very strong when you hear the zipping of bullets flying by. The 5.56 round was lighter, and allowed the soldier to carry more ammunition to fire even more rounds at the enemy in an effort to keep their heads down. Instead of eighty, or one hundred rounds of .308, the soldiers could carry three hundred rounds of 5.56.

Second. The 5.56 round created what is called “Military significant wounds”. This is preferred on a battlefield. If I kill an enemy, then his mates want revenge, but also don’t have to worry about him anymore. If I wound that enemy, his mates hear him screaming in pain, they see him bleeding, and possibly dying. It takes two of those enemy soldiers to carry the wounded man away. It takes a third soldier to carry the litter bearers weapons and equipment. One wound can remove three or four soldiers from the battle.

If the enemy ignores the wounded guy, then the screams work on their minds. They become afraid of being that guy, of screaming in agony as they lay dying. They are more reluctant to stick their heads up, more reluctant to do something courageous, and that results in fewer casualties on our side because of weakened morale on the enemy side.

Third. Ease of use. The 5.56 round does not have much power, so it does not have much kick. It makes it easier for smaller people to shoot the rifle. The rifle can be lighter, and easier for the soldier to carry. Now, one of the problems we had when the standard round was .30 Caliber, was that our allies who were smaller in stature couldn’t handle the rifles as easily. That was one of the reasons they developed the great grandfather of your “Assault Weapons” definition. The .30 Cal Carbine. This fired a hot pistol cartridge, so it could be smaller, lighter, and more easily used by the indigenous peoples. Early Pictures from Vietnam show the Vietnamese troops carrying this carbine. We gave it to the allies from nations where their physical stature was not as large as our own. Our own troops carried it during World War II as well as Korea and Vietnam.

The M-1 Garand was heavy, and had a powerful kick. The M-14 chamberd for the almost identical cartridge .308 was just as heavy, and had just as powerful a recoil.

By the way, both of those rifles, are far more lethal than the AR that is scaring you.

The devil is in the details. I told you that to begin with. Roughly speaking, one in ten of those shot in Vegas was killed. Again, that’s about average. It is hard to kill someone with that particular rifle cartridge. You have to hit them in a vital organ, head or heart, or clip an artery to get them to bleed out fast enough to kill them. Generally speaking of those wounded people get to a hospital alive, they have a 95% chance of survival. Not very lethal.

Let’s say you ban these semi-automatic rifles and pistols with these scary high capacity magazines. Do you think that people will not move to the larger calibers, the ones we have already explained are in fact far more lethal? Companies that are now making the popular AR platform will shift to the larger weapons. It might take them as much as two weeks to retool and start production. We’ll have a flurry of M-14 type rifles with the Ten Round magazine. But where perhaps three would die from the AR 30 round magazine, now five will die statistically speaking from the M-14 type weapon. That rifle has a 50% kill rate if you are shot by it.

So instead of saving lives, you’ll actually be killing more people.

I know, this is all just nonsense to you. But it is true. The Special Forces, the guys who have to have one shot one kill if at all possible have walked away from the 5.56 for the most part. They now use this. .458 SOCOM - Wikipedia

Much bigger bullet, much bigger hole in the baddie, and much more likely for the one shot one kill.

The FBI is switching pistols again. This time they’re abandoning the .40 for the less powerful 9MM. The reason? The cops miss their targets about 70% of the time in a shooting situation. Yes, you read that right. Three rounds out of ten will hit the baddie on average. The larger capacity allows for the cops to fire more rounds, and increase the chances that one of those hits will stop the baddie, or perhaps kill them.

Look at the reports of the Cops shooting anyone, Mike Brown. The bullets were all over his body. That was at practically point blank range. The cop was literally right on top of him and still had to empty the magazine because he couldn’t hit a vital organ reliably.

Get rid of those high capacity magazines, and the people will switch to more powerful rounds. Instead of a 9MM which you have an 80% chance of surviving, they’ll switch to a .357 Magnum, a round that is literally twice as powerful as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 ACP of the famed 1911 pistols. Those cartridges tend to stop in the human body, but the .357 plows right through and keeps on going.

If you want more lethal rounds on the street, focus on capacity. I’d prefer more wounded, than dead. But it’s the details that you need to learn to speak logically about these issues. Because I’d rather get shot with a 5.56 round any day than a .338 Lapua. I won’t survive the Lapua round if I am hit anywhere in the torso. I’ve got about one chance in five of surviving the AR round. With the Lapua, even if the round does not hit a vital organ, I’m liable to bleed out in less than two minutes.

The AR is not a magic wand of death. It is not even a very effective rifle. It is popular for the same reasons the military choose it. Not much kick, easy to shoot, ammunition is cheap, and plentiful, very accurate for it’s weight and design. Reasonably reliable all things considered.

For the record. Another of those devilish details. The 5.56 round, is a really fast .22 caliber. The original cartridge was the .223 Remington. Intended to be used to hunt very small deer. I use the classic 30.06 round for that task. That round is twice as powerful, literally again, as the .223 or 5.56. That’s the cartridge where you have one chance in two of surviving if you get shot in the torso with it.

It will make a big comeback as someone starts making the old M-1 Garands again if you ban those scary “Assault” weapons. The .308 will tear through two people with leathal injuries to both with ease. Why do you want those to become the weapon of choice? Let the people keep shooting our citizens with the least effective cartridge. It’s better for all of us if they stick with the more useless choice. We then have a much better chance of survival.

I appreciate your input. I also appreciate the fact that, while I was not brought up in a house with guns, I am out of my element when discussing specifics, details and the lexicon of the gun culture.

Americans are killing one another with frequency, rapidity and a blind eye to consequence and morality. Can you help us out here? This carnage must stop. How can we do that?

 

[Skull Pilot]

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

Only if you are an idiot! I suppose using that logic, a rock sitting in the road is a ballistic missile.

Using your incorrect definition, that would make my .40 caliber handgun an assault weapon. Now can you see the idiocy in your statement?

You would be content to argue semantics rather than responsibly address the problem.

Here's the accepted tactic: first argue that no law can totally prevent gun violence and, therefore, no laws need be written. Next, argue that gun legislation is prima facea unconstitutional and therefore should not be tried. Then argue that guns are benign, inanimate objects as safe as a ball of yarn and anyone who is not immersed deeply in the gun culture are poseurs with no valid argument to offer.

This attitude by default makes you complicit in mass shootings. Lacking the imagination to craft a compromise, you are forcing society to factor in the blood of innocent victims as the cost of doing business in a gun loving society.

Call me an idiot all damn day long. It won't make your argument any more legitimate.

There are several problems, problems that people are trying to tell you about, and you refuse to listen. It is said that the Devil is in the Details. In this case, the Devil is against you, because the details you are choosing to ignore, are vitally important.

First, the weapon you all are talking about is the AR platform chambered for the 5.56 MM NATO round. It is not the most leathal choice. It’s not in the top ten. It might make the list of the top 100 most lethal rounds, but only if you exclude exotic rounds that are not in widespread use.

Let’s start with Las Vegas. There were more than 500 injured, and 58 dead not counting the shooter who offed himself. That is a lethal rating of one in ten. You may want to argue that is not Germaine, but it is. Because the 5.56 round is not designed to kill. This is one of those details that you are ignoring. The 5.56 round was chosen for a number of reasons for the military. Lethality was not one of those criteria.

First, the truth is that a vast majority of rounds are fired in suppressive efforts. In other words, the soldier is shooting in the general direction of the enemy in an effort to pin them down, to keep them from shooting the soldier. The human instinct to duck is very strong when you hear the zipping of bullets flying by. The 5.56 round was lighter, and allowed the soldier to carry more ammunition to fire even more rounds at the enemy in an effort to keep their heads down. Instead of eighty, or one hundred rounds of .308, the soldiers could carry three hundred rounds of 5.56.

Second. The 5.56 round created what is called “Military significant wounds”. This is preferred on a battlefield. If I kill an enemy, then his mates want revenge, but also don’t have to worry about him anymore. If I wound that enemy, his mates hear him screaming in pain, they see him bleeding, and possibly dying. It takes two of those enemy soldiers to carry the wounded man away. It takes a third soldier to carry the litter bearers weapons and equipment. One wound can remove three or four soldiers from the battle.

If the enemy ignores the wounded guy, then the screams work on their minds. They become afraid of being that guy, of screaming in agony as they lay dying. They are more reluctant to stick their heads up, more reluctant to do something courageous, and that results in fewer casualties on our side because of weakened morale on the enemy side.

Third. Ease of use. The 5.56 round does not have much power, so it does not have much kick. It makes it easier for smaller people to shoot the rifle. The rifle can be lighter, and easier for the soldier to carry. Now, one of the problems we had when the standard round was .30 Caliber, was that our allies who were smaller in stature couldn’t handle the rifles as easily. That was one of the reasons they developed the great grandfather of your “Assault Weapons” definition. The .30 Cal Carbine. This fired a hot pistol cartridge, so it could be smaller, lighter, and more easily used by the indigenous peoples. Early Pictures from Vietnam show the Vietnamese troops carrying this carbine. We gave it to the allies from nations where their physical stature was not as large as our own. Our own troops carried it during World War II as well as Korea and Vietnam.

The M-1 Garand was heavy, and had a powerful kick. The M-14 chamberd for the almost identical cartridge .308 was just as heavy, and had just as powerful a recoil.

By the way, both of those rifles, are far more lethal than the AR that is scaring you.

The devil is in the details. I told you that to begin with. Roughly speaking, one in ten of those shot in Vegas was killed. Again, that’s about average. It is hard to kill someone with that particular rifle cartridge. You have to hit them in a vital organ, head or heart, or clip an artery to get them to bleed out fast enough to kill them. Generally speaking of those wounded people get to a hospital alive, they have a 95% chance of survival. Not very lethal.

Let’s say you ban these semi-automatic rifles and pistols with these scary high capacity magazines. Do you think that people will not move to the larger calibers, the ones we have already explained are in fact far more lethal? Companies that are now making the popular AR platform will shift to the larger weapons. It might take them as much as two weeks to retool and start production. We’ll have a flurry of M-14 type rifles with the Ten Round magazine. But where perhaps three would die from the AR 30 round magazine, now five will die statistically speaking from the M-14 type weapon. That rifle has a 50% kill rate if you are shot by it.

So instead of saving lives, you’ll actually be killing more people.

I know, this is all just nonsense to you. But it is true. The Special Forces, the guys who have to have one shot one kill if at all possible have walked away from the 5.56 for the most part. They now use this. .458 SOCOM - Wikipedia

Much bigger bullet, much bigger hole in the baddie, and much more likely for the one shot one kill.

The FBI is switching pistols again. This time they’re abandoning the .40 for the less powerful 9MM. The reason? The cops miss their targets about 70% of the time in a shooting situation. Yes, you read that right. Three rounds out of ten will hit the baddie on average. The larger capacity allows for the cops to fire more rounds, and increase the chances that one of those hits will stop the baddie, or perhaps kill them.

Look at the reports of the Cops shooting anyone, Mike Brown. The bullets were all over his body. That was at practically point blank range. The cop was literally right on top of him and still had to empty the magazine because he couldn’t hit a vital organ reliably.

Get rid of those high capacity magazines, and the people will switch to more powerful rounds. Instead of a 9MM which you have an 80% chance of surviving, they’ll switch to a .357 Magnum, a round that is literally twice as powerful as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 ACP of the famed 1911 pistols. Those cartridges tend to stop in the human body, but the .357 plows right through and keeps on going.

If you want more lethal rounds on the street, focus on capacity. I’d prefer more wounded, than dead. But it’s the details that you need to learn to speak logically about these issues. Because I’d rather get shot with a 5.56 round any day than a .338 Lapua. I won’t survive the Lapua round if I am hit anywhere in the torso. I’ve got about one chance in five of surviving the AR round. With the Lapua, even if the round does not hit a vital organ, I’m liable to bleed out in less than two minutes.

The AR is not a magic wand of death. It is not even a very effective rifle. It is popular for the same reasons the military choose it. Not much kick, easy to shoot, ammunition is cheap, and plentiful, very accurate for it’s weight and design. Reasonably reliable all things considered.

For the record. Another of those devilish details. The 5.56 round, is a really fast .22 caliber. The original cartridge was the .223 Remington. Intended to be used to hunt very small deer. I use the classic 30.06 round for that task. That round is twice as powerful, literally again, as the .223 or 5.56. That’s the cartridge where you have one chance in two of surviving if you get shot in the torso with it.

It will make a big comeback as someone starts making the old M-1 Garands again if you ban those scary “Assault” weapons. The .308 will tear through two people with leathal injuries to both with ease. Why do you want those to become the weapon of choice? Let the people keep shooting our citizens with the least effective cartridge. It’s better for all of us if they stick with the more useless choice. We then have a much better chance of survival.

M

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

Only if you are an idiot! I suppose using that logic, a rock sitting in the road is a ballistic missile.

Using your incorrect definition, that would make my .40 caliber handgun an assault weapon. Now can you see the idiocy in your statement?

You would be content to argue semantics rather than responsibly address the problem.

Here's the accepted tactic: first argue that no law can totally prevent gun violence and, therefore, no laws need be written. Next, argue that gun legislation is prima facea unconstitutional and therefore should not be tried. Then argue that guns are benign, inanimate objects as safe as a ball of yarn and anyone who is not immersed deeply in the gun culture are poseurs with no valid argument to offer.

This attitude by default makes you complicit in mass shootings. Lacking the imagination to craft a compromise, you are forcing society to factor in the blood of innocent victims as the cost of doing business in a gun loving society.

Call me an idiot all damn day long. It won't make your argument any more legitimate.

There are several problems, problems that people are trying to tell you about, and you refuse to listen. It is said that the Devil is in the Details. In this case, the Devil is against you, because the details you are choosing to ignore, are vitally important.

First, the weapon you all are talking about is the AR platform chambered for the 5.56 MM NATO round. It is not the most leathal choice. It’s not in the top ten. It might make the list of the top 100 most lethal rounds, but only if you exclude exotic rounds that are not in widespread use.

Let’s start with Las Vegas. There were more than 500 injured, and 58 dead not counting the shooter who offed himself. That is a lethal rating of one in ten. You may want to argue that is not Germaine, but it is. Because the 5.56 round is not designed to kill. This is one of those details that you are ignoring. The 5.56 round was chosen for a number of reasons for the military. Lethality was not one of those criteria.

First, the truth is that a vast majority of rounds are fired in suppressive efforts. In other words, the soldier is shooting in the general direction of the enemy in an effort to pin them down, to keep them from shooting the soldier. The human instinct to duck is very strong when you hear the zipping of bullets flying by. The 5.56 round was lighter, and allowed the soldier to carry more ammunition to fire even more rounds at the enemy in an effort to keep their heads down. Instead of eighty, or one hundred rounds of .308, the soldiers could carry three hundred rounds of 5.56.

Second. The 5.56 round created what is called “Military significant wounds”. This is preferred on a battlefield. If I kill an enemy, then his mates want revenge, but also don’t have to worry about him anymore. If I wound that enemy, his mates hear him screaming in pain, they see him bleeding, and possibly dying. It takes two of those enemy soldiers to carry the wounded man away. It takes a third soldier to carry the litter bearers weapons and equipment. One wound can remove three or four soldiers from the battle.

If the enemy ignores the wounded guy, then the screams work on their minds. They become afraid of being that guy, of screaming in agony as they lay dying. They are more reluctant to stick their heads up, more reluctant to do something courageous, and that results in fewer casualties on our side because of weakened morale on the enemy side.

Third. Ease of use. The 5.56 round does not have much power, so it does not have much kick. It makes it easier for smaller people to shoot the rifle. The rifle can be lighter, and easier for the soldier to carry. Now, one of the problems we had when the standard round was .30 Caliber, was that our allies who were smaller in stature couldn’t handle the rifles as easily. That was one of the reasons they developed the great grandfather of your “Assault Weapons” definition. The .30 Cal Carbine. This fired a hot pistol cartridge, so it could be smaller, lighter, and more easily used by the indigenous peoples. Early Pictures from Vietnam show the Vietnamese troops carrying this carbine. We gave it to the allies from nations where their physical stature was not as large as our own. Our own troops carried it during World War II as well as Korea and Vietnam.

The M-1 Garand was heavy, and had a powerful kick. The M-14 chamberd for the almost identical cartridge .308 was just as heavy, and had just as powerful a recoil.

By the way, both of those rifles, are far more lethal than the AR that is scaring you.

The devil is in the details. I told you that to begin with. Roughly speaking, one in ten of those shot in Vegas was killed. Again, that’s about average. It is hard to kill someone with that particular rifle cartridge. You have to hit them in a vital organ, head or heart, or clip an artery to get them to bleed out fast enough to kill them. Generally speaking of those wounded people get to a hospital alive, they have a 95% chance of survival. Not very lethal.

Let’s say you ban these semi-automatic rifles and pistols with these scary high capacity magazines. Do you think that people will not move to the larger calibers, the ones we have already explained are in fact far more lethal? Companies that are now making the popular AR platform will shift to the larger weapons. It might take them as much as two weeks to retool and start production. We’ll have a flurry of M-14 type rifles with the Ten Round magazine. But where perhaps three would die from the AR 30 round magazine, now five will die statistically speaking from the M-14 type weapon. That rifle has a 50% kill rate if you are shot by it.

So instead of saving lives, you’ll actually be killing more people.

I know, this is all just nonsense to you. But it is true. The Special Forces, the guys who have to have one shot one kill if at all possible have walked away from the 5.56 for the most part. They now use this. .458 SOCOM - Wikipedia

Much bigger bullet, much bigger hole in the baddie, and much more likely for the one shot one kill.

The FBI is switching pistols again. This time they’re abandoning the .40 for the less powerful 9MM. The reason? The cops miss their targets about 70% of the time in a shooting situation. Yes, you read that right. Three rounds out of ten will hit the baddie on average. The larger capacity allows for the cops to fire more rounds, and increase the chances that one of those hits will stop the baddie, or perhaps kill them.

Look at the reports of the Cops shooting anyone, Mike Brown. The bullets were all over his body. That was at practically point blank range. The cop was literally right on top of him and still had to empty the magazine because he couldn’t hit a vital organ reliably.

Get rid of those high capacity magazines, and the people will switch to more powerful rounds. Instead of a 9MM which you have an 80% chance of surviving, they’ll switch to a .357 Magnum, a round that is literally twice as powerful as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 ACP of the famed 1911 pistols. Those cartridges tend to stop in the human body, but the .357 plows right through and keeps on going.

If you want more lethal rounds on the street, focus on capacity. I’d prefer more wounded, than dead. But it’s the details that you need to learn to speak logically about these issues. Because I’d rather get shot with a 5.56 round any day than a .338 Lapua. I won’t survive the Lapua round if I am hit anywhere in the torso. I’ve got about one chance in five of surviving the AR round. With the Lapua, even if the round does not hit a vital organ, I’m liable to bleed out in less than two minutes.

The AR is not a magic wand of death. It is not even a very effective rifle. It is popular for the same reasons the military choose it. Not much kick, easy to shoot, ammunition is cheap, and plentiful, very accurate for it’s weight and design. Reasonably reliable all things considered.

For the record. Another of those devilish details. The 5.56 round, is a really fast .22 caliber. The original cartridge was the .223 Remington. Intended to be used to hunt very small deer. I use the classic 30.06 round for that task. That round is twice as powerful, literally again, as the .223 or 5.56. That’s the cartridge where you have one chance in two of surviving if you get shot in the torso with it.

It will make a big comeback as someone starts making the old M-1 Garands again if you ban those scary “Assault” weapons. The .308 will tear through two people with leathal injuries to both with ease. Why do you want those to become the weapon of choice? Let the people keep shooting our citizens with the least effective cartridge. It’s better for all of us if they stick with the more useless choice. We then have a much better chance of survival.

A semiautomatic rifle is NOT an assault weapon.

you want to hold everyone who happens to own a semiautomatic rifle responsible for crimes committed by other people.

Do you recognize any danger posed by assault weapons? And let's not get bogged down in semantics. A semi-automatic firing system fitted with a magazine containing more than ten rounds is, for the purpose of our discussion, an assault weapon.

Only if you are an idiot! I suppose using that logic, a rock sitting in the road is a ballistic missile.

Using your incorrect definition, that would make my .40 caliber handgun an assault weapon. Now can you see the idiocy in your statement?

You would be content to argue semantics rather than responsibly address the problem.

Here's the accepted tactic: first argue that no law can totally prevent gun violence and, therefore, no laws need be written. Next, argue that gun legislation is prima facea unconstitutional and therefore should not be tried. Then argue that guns are benign, inanimate objects as safe as a ball of yarn and anyone who is not immersed deeply in the gun culture are poseurs with no valid argument to offer.

This attitude by default makes you complicit in mass shootings. Lacking the imagination to craft a compromise, you are forcing society to factor in the blood of innocent victims as the cost of doing business in a gun loving society.

Call me an idiot all damn day long. It won't make your argument any more legitimate.

There are several problems, problems that people are trying to tell you about, and you refuse to listen. It is said that the Devil is in the Details. In this case, the Devil is against you, because the details you are choosing to ignore, are vitally important.

First, the weapon you all are talking about is the AR platform chambered for the 5.56 MM NATO round. It is not the most leathal choice. It’s not in the top ten. It might make the list of the top 100 most lethal rounds, but only if you exclude exotic rounds that are not in widespread use.

Let’s start with Las Vegas. There were more than 500 injured, and 58 dead not counting the shooter who offed himself. That is a lethal rating of one in ten. You may want to argue that is not Germaine, but it is. Because the 5.56 round is not designed to kill. This is one of those details that you are ignoring. The 5.56 round was chosen for a number of reasons for the military. Lethality was not one of those criteria.

First, the truth is that a vast majority of rounds are fired in suppressive efforts. In other words, the soldier is shooting in the general direction of the enemy in an effort to pin them down, to keep them from shooting the soldier. The human instinct to duck is very strong when you hear the zipping of bullets flying by. The 5.56 round was lighter, and allowed the soldier to carry more ammunition to fire even more rounds at the enemy in an effort to keep their heads down. Instead of eighty, or one hundred rounds of .308, the soldiers could carry three hundred rounds of 5.56.

Second. The 5.56 round created what is called “Military significant wounds”. This is preferred on a battlefield. If I kill an enemy, then his mates want revenge, but also don’t have to worry about him anymore. If I wound that enemy, his mates hear him screaming in pain, they see him bleeding, and possibly dying. It takes two of those enemy soldiers to carry the wounded man away. It takes a third soldier to carry the litter bearers weapons and equipment. One wound can remove three or four soldiers from the battle.

If the enemy ignores the wounded guy, then the screams work on their minds. They become afraid of being that guy, of screaming in agony as they lay dying. They are more reluctant to stick their heads up, more reluctant to do something courageous, and that results in fewer casualties on our side because of weakened morale on the enemy side.

Third. Ease of use. The 5.56 round does not have much power, so it does not have much kick. It makes it easier for smaller people to shoot the rifle. The rifle can be lighter, and easier for the soldier to carry. Now, one of the problems we had when the standard round was .30 Caliber, was that our allies who were smaller in stature couldn’t handle the rifles as easily. That was one of the reasons they developed the great grandfather of your “Assault Weapons” definition. The .30 Cal Carbine. This fired a hot pistol cartridge, so it could be smaller, lighter, and more easily used by the indigenous peoples. Early Pictures from Vietnam show the Vietnamese troops carrying this carbine. We gave it to the allies from nations where their physical stature was not as large as our own. Our own troops carried it during World War II as well as Korea and Vietnam.

The M-1 Garand was heavy, and had a powerful kick. The M-14 chamberd for the almost identical cartridge .308 was just as heavy, and had just as powerful a recoil.

By the way, both of those rifles, are far more lethal than the AR that is scaring you.

The devil is in the details. I told you that to begin with. Roughly speaking, one in ten of those shot in Vegas was killed. Again, that’s about average. It is hard to kill someone with that particular rifle cartridge. You have to hit them in a vital organ, head or heart, or clip an artery to get them to bleed out fast enough to kill them. Generally speaking of those wounded people get to a hospital alive, they have a 95% chance of survival. Not very lethal.

Let’s say you ban these semi-automatic rifles and pistols with these scary high capacity magazines. Do you think that people will not move to the larger calibers, the ones we have already explained are in fact far more lethal? Companies that are now making the popular AR platform will shift to the larger weapons. It might take them as much as two weeks to retool and start production. We’ll have a flurry of M-14 type rifles with the Ten Round magazine. But where perhaps three would die from the AR 30 round magazine, now five will die statistically speaking from the M-14 type weapon. That rifle has a 50% kill rate if you are shot by it.

So instead of saving lives, you’ll actually be killing more people.

I know, this is all just nonsense to you. But it is true. The Special Forces, the guys who have to have one shot one kill if at all possible have walked away from the 5.56 for the most part. They now use this. .458 SOCOM - Wikipedia

Much bigger bullet, much bigger hole in the baddie, and much more likely for the one shot one kill.

The FBI is switching pistols again. This time they’re abandoning the .40 for the less powerful 9MM. The reason? The cops miss their targets about 70% of the time in a shooting situation. Yes, you read that right. Three rounds out of ten will hit the baddie on average. The larger capacity allows for the cops to fire more rounds, and increase the chances that one of those hits will stop the baddie, or perhaps kill them.

Look at the reports of the Cops shooting anyone, Mike Brown. The bullets were all over his body. That was at practically point blank range. The cop was literally right on top of him and still had to empty the magazine because he couldn’t hit a vital organ reliably.

Get rid of those high capacity magazines, and the people will switch to more powerful rounds. Instead of a 9MM which you have an 80% chance of surviving, they’ll switch to a .357 Magnum, a round that is literally twice as powerful as the 9MM. It is far more powerful than the .45 ACP of the famed 1911 pistols. Those cartridges tend to stop in the human body, but the .357 plows right through and keeps on going.

If you want more lethal rounds on the street, focus on capacity. I’d prefer more wounded, than dead. But it’s the details that you need to learn to speak logically about these issues. Because I’d rather get shot with a 5.56 round any day than a .338 Lapua. I won’t survive the Lapua round if I am hit anywhere in the torso. I’ve got about one chance in five of surviving the AR round. With the Lapua, even if the round does not hit a vital organ, I’m liable to bleed out in less than two minutes.

The AR is not a magic wand of death. It is not even a very effective rifle. It is popular for the same reasons the military choose it. Not much kick, easy to shoot, ammunition is cheap, and plentiful, very accurate for it’s weight and design. Reasonably reliable all things considered.

For the record. Another of those devilish details. The 5.56 round, is a really fast .22 caliber. The original cartridge was the .223 Remington. Intended to be used to hunt very small deer. I use the classic 30.06 round for that task. That round is twice as powerful, literally again, as the .223 or 5.56. That’s the cartridge where you have one chance in two of surviving if you get shot in the torso with it.

It will make a big comeback as someone starts making the old M-1 Garands again if you ban those scary “Assault” weapons. The .308 will tear through two people with leathal injuries to both with ease. Why do you want those to become the weapon of choice? Let the people keep shooting our citizens with the least effective cartridge. It’s better for all of us if they stick with the more useless choice. We then have a much better chance of survival.

I appreciate your input. I also appreciate the fact that, while I was not brought up in a house with guns, I am out of my element when discussing specifics, details and the lexicon of the gun culture.

Americans are killing one another with frequency, rapidity and a blind eye to consequence and morality. Can you help us out here? This carnage must stop. How can we do that?

We don't do it by stepping on the rights of people who don't and won't break the law.