3 mass shooting, three semi automtic rifles

[jc456]

You cling to your guns while people die. That is sad.

Yeah ... I will protect my rights and liberties ... Use my firearms if necessary (hope I don't have to).

Sorry it makes you sad ... Its possible you just aren't cut out for this type of thing.
No worries though ... The government will save you (maybe).
Look at how well background checks, gun free zones and all the laws have already worked to protect you.

.

Well the evidence is clear how to save lives. Hopefully in the future we will value lives over
inanimate objects.

well it is actually really simple. death sentences for violence with a gun. want to see how fast that shit stops? but you're against that. so innocent lives really aren't important to you, so you actually lie.

ahh braainiack doesn't want to punish the gun violence. see that is why there are so many guns that he wishes to argue against I give him how to get rid of guns and he ignores it.

Experts Explain Why the Death Penalty Does Not Deter Murder | Death Penalty Information Center

yeah yeah old argument. use a gun in a violent crime, death sentence. no appeal process. None, zip.

 

[jc456]

Specious logic and cramming incredulous words into my mouth does very little to engender respect for your argument.

Your entire premise is nefarious and violates the Constitutionally protected rights of citizens ... You have no respect to stand on much less barter with.

Go pound sand ...

.

Carrying a concealed weapon does not infringe on your right to bear arms. Going through a labyrinth of paperwork and regulations to own a machine gun does infringe. So precedent has been set. Let's expand that precedent to curb the availability of the weapons used in mass shootings.

let's make sentences a death sentence for violence with a gun period. Why are you against that?

Because the state should not be in the business of killing. One botched car nviction resulting in execution is too many. Our system is not yet perfect enough to assure 100% infallibility.

no it isn't, one innocent life due to gang violence is one too many.

 

[Nosmo King]

Specious logic and cramming incredulous words into my mouth does very little to engender respect for your argument.

Your entire premise is nefarious and violates the Constitutionally protected rights of citizens ... You have no respect to stand on much less barter with.

Go pound sand ...

.

Carrying a concealed weapon does not infringe on your right to bear arms. Going through a labyrinth of paperwork and regulations to own a machine gun does infringe. So precedent has been set. Let's expand that precedent to curb the availability of the weapons used in mass shootings.

I hope you're not serious. For one thing, there's no way all these mass shootings are happening without someone organizing them.

For instance, Las Vegas. They realized they fucked up royally there, and overplayed their hand by a mile claiming 1 man did that. Ain't nobody buyin' that shiet!

That there was the work of 3 or more people.

Every mass shooting save a minimal of them is designed to curb gun rights in America.

It's false flags and bullshit.

So no, they're not going to win.

Let Congress introduce some more gun restrictions and see what happens to them with their corrupt, do-nothing-for-the-people asses.

There will be blood running, not much of it will be the angry citizen's.

And the FBI and CIA need razed to the ground and reformed, too.

Did they stop 9/11/2001? No, they failed, they're fired, fuck 'em.

Did the CIA prevent Bhenghazi? No? They failed, fuck 'em, they're fired too.

Did the FBI prevent Boston Bombing? Noop!


What do you do when someone doesn't do their job? Huh?

You run them off and get someone who will do a proper job!

Hello? Seriously.

Mass shootings are either all conspiracies to advance a political agenda or they are hoaxes of the first order.

Wow! Shouldn't you change the tin foil on your head daily?

 

[Nosmo King]

Specious logic and cramming incredulous words into my mouth does very little to engender respect for your argument.

Your entire premise is nefarious and violates the Constitutionally protected rights of citizens ... You have no respect to stand on much less barter with.

Go pound sand ...

.

Carrying a concealed weapon does not infringe on your right to bear arms. Going through a labyrinth of paperwork and regulations to own a machine gun does infringe. So precedent has been set. Let's expand that precedent to curb the availability of the weapons used in mass shootings.

let's make sentences a death sentence for violence with a gun period. Why are you against that?

Because the state should not be in the business of killing. One botched car nviction resulting in execution is too many. Our system is not yet perfect enough to assure 100% infallibility.

no it isn't, one innocent life due to gang violence is one too many.

But don't dare limit the availability of assault weapons to those gang members, right?

 

[westwall]

The pragmatic would be to enforce the gun laws we already have with harsh sentencing and no parole not blaming all gun owners for the actions of fucking criminals.

Commit any crime while in possession of a firearm even if that fire arm was never drawn automatic 25 years no parole

Commit any crime and draw a firearm during the commission of that crime even if the gun is not fired 35 years no parole

Commit any crime and fire a gun during the commission of that crime and no one gets injured or killed 50 years no parole

Commit a crime and injure or kill with a firearm during the commission of that crime LIFE no parole

That is gun control

And the men's tally frazzled take all that into account right up to the point they pull the trigger.

What puts the "mass" in "mass shooting"? The weapon.

So, you somehow, magically, get all of the guns off the streets. The bad guys switch to trucks. Do you see where this leads?

Why are you more afraid of trucks than semi-automatics? Can't imagine another use for trucks than as weapons?

we just know that a vehicle kills more than a gun.

With bullets? What was a vehicle designed to do? What is an assault weapon designed to do?

You might be fooled by such a specious argument but give others more credit.

Why? You point to these countries that have "less gun violence" than we do, yet, when you look at Europe as a whole, to get a similar population base you find that overall Europe is more violent than the US is, and gun crime is exploding. They are now getting to experience the third world culture, and the violence that is part and parcel of that culture. We have ALWAYS had to deal with it, they haven't.

Your arguments against gun ownership are cute, but they are not based in reality.

 

[jc456]

Specious logic and cramming incredulous words into my mouth does very little to engender respect for your argument.

Your entire premise is nefarious and violates the Constitutionally protected rights of citizens ... You have no respect to stand on much less barter with.

Go pound sand ...

.

Carrying a concealed weapon does not infringe on your right to bear arms. Going through a labyrinth of paperwork and regulations to own a machine gun does infringe. So precedent has been set. Let's expand that precedent to curb the availability of the weapons used in mass shootings.

I hope you're not serious. For one thing, there's no way all these mass shootings are happening without someone organizing them.

For instance, Las Vegas. They realized they fucked up royally there, and overplayed their hand by a mile claiming 1 man did that. Ain't nobody buyin' that shiet!

That there was the work of 3 or more people.

Every mass shooting save a minimal of them is designed to curb gun rights in America.

It's false flags and bullshit.

So no, they're not going to win.

Let Congress introduce some more gun restrictions and see what happens to them with their corrupt, do-nothing-for-the-people asses.

There will be blood running, not much of it will be the angry citizen's.

And the FBI and CIA need razed to the ground and reformed, too.

Did they stop 9/11/2001? No, they failed, they're fired, fuck 'em.

Did the CIA prevent Bhenghazi? No? They failed, fuck 'em, they're fired too.

Did the FBI prevent Boston Bombing? Noop!


What do you do when someone doesn't do their job? Huh?

You run them off and get someone who will do a proper job!

Hello? Seriously.

Mass shootings are either all conspiracies to advance a political agenda or they are hoaxes of the first order.

Wow! Shouldn't you change the tin foil on your head daily?

all mass shootings are due to mental disorders. just like using chemicals like timothy mcveigh. all of it looney tooners.

 

[westwall]

Your entire premise is nefarious and violates the Constitutionally protected rights of citizens ... You have no respect to stand on much less barter with.

Go pound sand ...

.

Carrying a concealed weapon does not infringe on your right to bear arms. Going through a labyrinth of paperwork and regulations to own a machine gun does infringe. So precedent has been set. Let's expand that precedent to curb the availability of the weapons used in mass shootings.

let's make sentences a death sentence for violence with a gun period. Why are you against that?

Because the state should not be in the business of killing. One botched car nviction resulting in execution is too many. Our system is not yet perfect enough to assure 100% infallibility.

no it isn't, one innocent life due to gang violence is one too many.

But don't dare limit the availability of assault weapons to those gang members, right?

Wrong. Not only do we not want them to have them WE WANT THOSE VIOLENT SCUMBAGS IN PRISON FOR LIFE. Why do you insist on letting the most violent offenders be released over and over and over?

 

[jc456]

Your entire premise is nefarious and violates the Constitutionally protected rights of citizens ... You have no respect to stand on much less barter with.

Go pound sand ...

.

Carrying a concealed weapon does not infringe on your right to bear arms. Going through a labyrinth of paperwork and regulations to own a machine gun does infringe. So precedent has been set. Let's expand that precedent to curb the availability of the weapons used in mass shootings.

let's make sentences a death sentence for violence with a gun period. Why are you against that?

Because the state should not be in the business of killing. One botched car nviction resulting in execution is too many. Our system is not yet perfect enough to assure 100% infallibility.

no it isn't, one innocent life due to gang violence is one too many.

But don't dare limit the availability of assault weapons to those gang members, right?

dude I have no desire to take away any gun. anywhere. it is a constitutional right. I am for death sentences for use of fire arms in a violent crime, no appeal.

 

[BlackSand]

Carrying a concealed weapon does not infringe on your right to bear arms. Going through a labyrinth of paperwork and regulations to own a machine gun does infringe. So precedent has been set. Let's expand that precedent to curb the availability of the weapons used in mass shootings.

I have a Conceal and Carry permit ... I could apply and get a license for a machine gun if I wanted one.

Crap ... The number of private citizens with a Conceal and Carry permit has increased 256% since 2008.
There are 14.5 million Conceal and Carry permit holders in the US.
They (permit holders not just gun owners) outnumber federal, state and local law enforcement 5 to 1.

We aren't asking you for your approval ... We are already able to have what we want.
You are simply asking for something we are not required to give you.
You have nothing to compromise with ... The only thing you can do is threaten to take what we already have away.

That won't turn out well for anyone.

Edit:
Albeit it is nothing I would ever hope for ...
There is a mass killing the scope of Waco, Texas on a national level knocking on your door ... And you are inviting it in and offering it tea.



.

 

[westwall]

So, you somehow, magically, get all of the guns off the streets. The bad guys switch to trucks. Do you see where this leads?

Why are you more afraid of trucks than semi-automatics? Can't imagine another use for trucks than as weapons?

we just know that a vehicle kills more than a gun.

And we know gun control lowers gun deaths.

conceal and carry you're exactly right.

We have more concealed carry than ever:
FBI: Violent crime increases for second straight year

Indeed we do, and those counties that have the most concealed carry also have the least crime. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

[oldsoul]

and in it it states:

"The surges appeared to be driven by increases in murders in Chicago, Baltimore and some other large cities where violence persisted even as neighboring communities reported declines."

conceal and carry.

As we get more concealed carry, violent crime is increasing. Too many guns.

you didn't read your own link. where were the surges again? heavily gang infested areas. duh!! why post something and ignore the facts your own link gave you? I don't know abut you people. At least I'd apologies that I read it wrong or something. but wow.

Violent crime is up, nothing was read wrong.

it isn't that simple to make that statement. look dude i give two shits your beliefs, but a generalization like that is looked into deeper and i posted what the reason was. And it doesn't say conceal and carry. just doesn't. it says gang infested areas. period. I fking quoted it for you. here again.

"The surges appeared to be driven by increases in murders in Chicago, Baltimore and some other large cities where violence persisted even as neighboring communities reported declines."

it says this "even as neighboring communities reported declines."

I didn't say concealed carry was the reason. But the claim of more guns equals less crime sure is down the shitter.

Redirect Notice
So, first of all, yea "assault type" weapons are NOT the problem, they are a percentage of a small percentage. Second, more guns does = fewer homicides.

 

[oldsoul]

You cling to your guns while people die. That is sad.

Yeah ... I will protect my rights and liberties ... Use my firearms if necessary (hope I don't have to).

Sorry it makes you sad ... Its possible you just aren't cut out for this type of thing.
No worries though ... The government will save you (maybe).
Look at how well background checks, gun free zones and all the laws have already worked to protect you.

.

Well the evidence is clear how to save lives. Hopefully in the future we will value lives over
inanimate objects.

well it is actually really simple. death sentences for violence with a gun. want to see how fast that shit stops? but you're against that. so innocent lives really aren't important to you, so you actually lie.

We have the fullest jails in the world. Many criminals have guns cause they need protection from other armed criminals. Too many guns.

And you think a ban on guns is going to stop criminals from using guns to protect themselves from other criminals with guns? You can not be serious.

 

[westwall]

You cling to your guns while people die. That is sad.

Yeah ... I will protect my rights and liberties ... Use my firearms if necessary (hope I don't have to).

Sorry it makes you sad ... Its possible you just aren't cut out for this type of thing.
No worries though ... The government will save you (maybe).
Look at how well background checks, gun free zones and all the laws have already worked to protect you.

.

Well the evidence is clear how to save lives. Hopefully in the future we will value lives over
inanimate objects.

well it is actually really simple. death sentences for violence with a gun. want to see how fast that shit stops? but you're against that. so innocent lives really aren't important to you, so you actually lie.

We have the fullest jails in the world. Many criminals have guns cause they need protection from other armed criminals. Too many guns.

And you think a ban on guns is going to stop criminals from using guns to protect themselves from other criminals with guns? You can not be serious.

He is. One other progressive felt that it was proper for criminals to be armed and that it was terrible for honest civilians to be armed because the criminals might get hurt. That is how screwed up their "thinking" is. They are truly warped individuals.

 

[oldsoul]

You cling to your guns while people die. That is sad.

Yeah ... I will protect my rights and liberties ... Use my firearms if necessary (hope I don't have to).

Sorry it makes you sad ... Its possible you just aren't cut out for this type of thing.
No worries though ... The government will save you (maybe).
Look at how well background checks, gun free zones and all the laws have already worked to protect you.

.

Well the evidence is clear how to save lives. Hopefully in the future we will value lives over
inanimate objects.

well it is actually really simple. death sentences for violence with a gun. want to see how fast that shit stops? but you're against that. so innocent lives really aren't important to you, so you actually lie.

ahh braainiack doesn't want to punish the gun violence. see that is why there are so many guns that he wishes to argue against I give him how to get rid of guns and he ignores it.

Experts Explain Why the Death Penalty Does Not Deter Murder | Death Penalty Information Center

You already said it:

They don't care.

 

[oldsoul]

Yeah ... I will protect my rights and liberties ... Use my firearms if necessary (hope I don't have to).

Sorry it makes you sad ... Its possible you just aren't cut out for this type of thing.
No worries though ... The government will save you (maybe).
Look at how well background checks, gun free zones and all the laws have already worked to protect you.

.

Well the evidence is clear how to save lives. Hopefully in the future we will value lives over
inanimate objects.

well it is actually really simple. death sentences for violence with a gun. want to see how fast that shit stops? but you're against that. so innocent lives really aren't important to you, so you actually lie.

We have the fullest jails in the world. Many criminals have guns cause they need protection from other armed criminals. Too many guns.

And you think a ban on guns is going to stop criminals from using guns to protect themselves from other criminals with guns? You can not be serious.

He is. One other progressive felt that it was proper for criminals to be armed and that it was terrible for honest civilians to be armed because the criminals might get hurt. That is how screwed up their "thinking" is. They are truly warped individuals.

Many are, yes.

 

[Marion Morrison]

You know what I hate to see? And this happens all too often. Some guy has a wife and kids and starts dealing dope to support them. Yes, it's illegal, but he's not really hurting or forcing anything on anybody.

Enter crazy robber guy. He comes to family man's house because he thinks "I can rob him and get away with it, he won't call the popo, it's dope" So he breaks into this guy's house that has a wife and children, the guy shoots him dead, next thing you know, the father of 2-3 kids is up the road for 10-17 years for 2nd degree murder. I'm for decriminalizing dope and being harsher on violent robbers.

They're turds, I have encountered them in my life. If one breaks in here, he's a dead man, if I can help it.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

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?

Ban knives, fists, and any other tools used to kill people with not restricted by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Specious logic and cramming incredulous words into my mouth does very little to engender respect for your argument.

Your entire premise is nefarious and violates the Constitutionally protected rights of citizens ... You have no respect to stand on much less barter with.

Go pound sand ...

.

Carrying a concealed weapon does not infringe on your right to bear arms. Going through a labyrinth of paperwork and regulations to own a machine gun does infringe. So precedent has been set. Let's expand that precedent to curb the availability of the weapons used in mass shootings.

I hope you're not serious. For one thing, there's no way all these mass shootings are happening without someone organizing them.

For instance, Las Vegas. They realized they fucked up royally there, and overplayed their hand by a mile claiming 1 man did that. Ain't nobody buyin' that shiet!

That there was the work of 3 or more people.

Every mass shooting save a minimal of them is designed to curb gun rights in America.

It's false flags and bullshit.

So no, they're not going to win.

Let Congress introduce some more gun restrictions and see what happens to them with their corrupt, do-nothing-for-the-people asses.

There will be blood running, not much of it will be the angry citizen's.

And the FBI and CIA need razed to the ground and reformed, too.

Did they stop 9/11/2001? No, they failed, they're fired, fuck 'em.

Did the CIA prevent Bhenghazi? No? They failed, fuck 'em, they're fired too.

Did the FBI prevent Boston Bombing? Noop!


What do you do when someone doesn't do their job? Huh?

You run them off and get someone who will do a proper job!

Hello? Seriously.

That statement was made by the Sheriff and I am sure he regrets it.

What was so superhuman about his efforts?

Given the same resources, I could have pulled it off also. Many more could have too.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

Yes happens here weekly. Everywhere else it happens every few years and usually involves international terrorists.

You're only making it painfully clear that allowing leftists near guns is the problem. Remember Steve Scalise?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

Well the evidence is clear how to save lives. Hopefully in the future we will value lives over
inanimate objects.

well it is actually really simple. death sentences for violence with a gun. want to see how fast that shit stops? but you're against that. so innocent lives really aren't important to you, so you actually lie.

We have the fullest jails in the world. Many criminals have guns cause they need protection from other armed criminals. Too many guns.

who said anything about jails? not me. I said again, well it is actually really simple. death sentences for violence with a gun. want to see how fast that shit stops?

Won't work. Many of them already don't live to be very old. They don't care.

so death by cop or gang is already enacted. so now we just take away the collateral damage and enforce for real death sentence for violence with a gun and we gain control again like in the old west days of hanging.

Most people are unaware that in the Old West, the penalty for stealing a man's horse or cattle was death! There were very few trials either!