What is the republican solution to ending mass shootings? Why don’t they ever offer solutions?

[frigidweirdo]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

Oh, they do. Their solution is to arm everyone, because apparently this will somehow work. Yeah, more guns will mean more people die, which will then destroy humans in the US and when they're all dead, there won't be any gun crime.

No, just arm the good people as so they can then protect themselves from the bad people who are being created faster than a person can blink these days.

Now since you don't have any honest solutions on how to curb or stop so many bad idiots from getting on board the good people train, then just sit back and watch as the nation attempts to drain the swamp that has been created over time now.

And who are the "good people"?

Such a ridiculous concept.

 

[Rustic]

then you should be happy mass shooters like the .223 since it wasn't designed to kill. Just think of the death toll if mass shooters used 6.8 or 7.62 rounds

and a .223 kills rabid skunks, raccoons and coyotes just fine thank you very much

School is in
Think about what you have just said. Let's look at the 6.8. It's about the same length but a bigger diameter in both bullet and cartridge. The cartridge is made up of a very light and strong composite. The weight is less than the 556 or 223 so you don't add weight. It's being designed for WAR just like the 556 was designed for war. It just does it a bit better at a longer range. So you don't give up the amount of ammo you can carry but have a more effective weapon of war.

They replaced the M-14 with the M-16 because the weight of the gun and the weight of the ammo. The M-14 was far superior in a firefight but you ran out of ammo too fast. The 7.62 or 308 is the far superior cartridge but it's heavy in comparison therefore you can't carry as many rounds. Plus, due to the power of the cartridge, the gun has to be larger and heavier. You wouldn't know this because you haven't spent 16 hours force marching from point A to B with 80lbs of other equipment on your back. Every ounce saved.......

Now, about the 223, most school shootings are done close up. The 223 will kill larger game (meaning us) easily at close range. And since you have so many rounds, don't worry about wasting it. Even if the aftermath looks like a battle zone, it's not. You have ammo to burn. Before you run out of ammo you will run out of time and you only have a few minutes to operate until the Cops take you out or you put the muzzle in your mouth. And most shooters are part of the AR Cult. No dues, no memberships just insanity. You are part of that AR Cult. the only difference is, you don't have the guts to go out and do a mass shooting yourself in the name of the Revolution. The only reason that Vegas Shooting had such a high body count at that range was he through hundreds of rounds out very fast. It's like throwing a bunch of rocks at a wall full of balloons. Some will hit and most will miss but if you throw enough, you can burst almost all the balloons. This is the method of the Full Auto M-16 or the AR-15 with a bump stock. This has been abandoned by even the Military. But it's not ineffective when you have a target rich environment like a theater, school or Club. The 223 does exactly what it was originally invented to do at that point.

You are part of a cult. And the way to stop mass shootings is to outlaw the cult. Maybe we should handle it like any other violent cult and just start arresting the cult leaders.

Meaningless as is everything you post.

and you're not going to stop mass shooting by getting rid of one rifle because any semiautomatic rifle will kill just as many people as an AR

and I'll tell you again since you have obviously forgotten the other 20 times I have told you that I do not own an AR 15 because I saw no benefit to buying one because I already have 2 rifles chambered for the .223 round

The problem most of us have with you is that you have put out so outlandishly uninformed information in here, we automatically assume you aren't telling the truth about anything.

Why would anyone buy anything other than an AR type for 223? For sporting, it's a terrible round. There are just so many better choices when you start going with other guns.

THe .223 works just fine for the purposes I use it for

So I really don't care what you think.

Just goes to show that you are caught up in the AR Cult. That Cult is going away soon. Then what are you going to go off about? I have faith in you, you'll think of something.

Lol
Nice try...
There is no better varmint rifle than ar/m4 platforms... Prairie dogs, coyotes, hogs, foxes, etc can attest to that.
Live with it

 

[Rustic]

These mass shootings virtually always involve high- capacity rapid-fire weapons.
There is absolutely no rational reason an ordinary citizen (that is, excluding law-enforcement and military), needs to have such a lethal weapon.
The only reason an ordinary citizen needs a gun is for hunting or target shooting, and the remote possibility that he might need to defend his home at some point.
If you own a gun, you have a responsibility to maintain it, and your competence in handling it. Target shooting is very educational, and hunting is a thrill. Get them both, and you'll have a ball, and, with luck no-one will be killed accidentally in the process.
But, if you need an AR15, you should get a LOT of education, before you go hunting!

you need to learn what a semiautomatic weapon is maybe then you will realize that it is nothing but a semiautomatic rifle just like any other that has been available to the public for over 100 years

He probably knows. The AR15 IS a rapid fire weapon. Even with just semi auto. It came into being as the AR-15 Model 601 and has seen a ton of battles in Combat. There is little difference between the AR-15 Model 760 and the AR-15 Model 601. That means that there is little difference between the modern AR-15 and it's clones and the M-4. It has features to help a scared shitless skinny young kid carry it for long periods of time and put a lot of lead into the enemy. The normal operation of the M-4 is semi auto and that means it's so close to the AR-15 model 760 there isn't enough to argue about. Yet, you do argue.

The first thing that we have to do to stop the mass shootings of today is to get rid of the AR Cult. And you demonstrate why each and every time you post.

Lol
You don’t solve anything by taking from law-abiding citizens, Who are you to say who owns what when it comes to small arms? fuck off

Reminder. We HAD a 10 year ban on sales of assault weapons and not only did the sky not fall but mass shootings declined...only to rise again after the ban was lifted

Lol
Na, not really
Less than 1% of firearm violence is done by people using ars in this country so take your political correctness and shove it up your fucking ass...

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The chance of needing a gun to defend yourself are akin to getting hit by lightning.

The chance of that happening and a revolver not being sufficient are near zero.

And even less of being a victim of a mass shooting. But you act like it's a daily thing in every state the way you're carrying on.

I listen to our police scanner all the time. I know what goes on here. Don't you tell me what my odds are of needing a firearm until you walked in my shoes.

Your ballet shoes I think I will pass on. But my size 11 combat boots says I have walked in some pretty big shoes. And I don't feel the need to be armed at all times. The closest thing to a threat I can see is one neighbor that is alt-right and worships Trump and Guns. For him, I have guns in case he goes off. But I don't carry one when I go outside. It's a hassle to work in the shop wearing one considering if you are smart, you will even take off your watch and rings. It's a hassle working on the truck with that thing hooking on everything. And when I need to get parts, it's a hassle to go inside and put the gun on, better to just go get the parts and be done with it.

I'll say this again. If you fear for you or your families safety where you live maybe you should move to an area that you won't feel the need to have that fear. Unless you are the one that everyone else fears then you should just eat the muzzle.

Well that's the success story of our nation: if things get too bad, just run away.

In the city, it takes money to move to a safer area; money many of us don't have. My sister and aunt recently sold their homes to move out, and now my mother is considering the same although even if she finds something, it will be so small for the money she will get from her home that she'll live the rest of her life in misery.

My aunt moved in with her daughter, and my sister makes nearly six figures a year. Even then, she is now complaining about her new mortgage since she didn't have one with her former home. Because it's a townhouse, she has to pay maintenance fees on top of it.

Point is you can't look at the entire country from your size 11 shoes. You have to understand that different environments require different levels of protection. You can't say "I don't need a gun for self-defense so nobody does!" That's just plain ignorance.

In many ways, thinking you have to be armed at all times IS a form of running away. If your neighborhood is unsafe and you feel you have to carry all the time then three things must happen

1. Help change the neighborhood through other methods than shooting anyone.

2. Move to a safer neighborhood. Why would you want to jepordize your family by staying in Syria? And that is one of the very few places on Earth I would suggest you go armed at all time. Otherwise, move your family to a safer home.

3. Leave it like it is and just stand vigil at all times. This is not a way to live life.

I live alone so I have nobody to worry about but myself. People running away is how this neighborhood got to where it's at in the first place.

I never said I carry all the time. I carry mostly when I'm going out or expecting to be coming home after dark, or at times when I make a night deposit at the bank.

There is only so much one can do to save a neighborhood or improve it. When bad people move in--good people move out and there is nothing you can do about it. It's against the law to stop the bad people from moving in and there is no law to stop good people moving out.

 

[2aguy]

Name me one mass shooting in the US that left thousands of survivors..........just one.

Vegas...moron

No moron, it was less than a thousand, and it was the worst mass shooting in American history. It's not the norm.

It could have become the norm. AFter the theaters, Schools and Eateries, this was the next logical step. Okay, not using your logic that isn't logical. But to a sane person Vegas was the next logical step. The only positive thing that came out of it was the change in security for large venues like that. It's now harder to get those weapons in place. It's not impossible but just harder.

And there was nothing that could have been done about it. He bought his firearms legally by the federal and state guidelines and regulations. He was a nobody to the government and certainly not on their radar screen although people say he was a little weird.

He was a financially successful man, a guy who took care of his elderly mother, very well known on the Vegas strip. Nobody could have expected such a thing.

I think if someone had noted the quantity he was buying. That should have been at least a trigger for him to be looked at. One person buying that much can't really be up to no good. That is, unless you are guncrazy who shows no sense at all and is arming for the great "Revolution" that is sure to happen any day now.

You mean except for the people who enjoy guns and use them for everything except breaking the law? Jay Leno owns 4 airplane hangers full of cars.....when someone enjoys a hobby, and they aren't breaking the law, what they do is their own business.

 

[2aguy]

The chance of needing a gun to defend yourself are akin to getting hit by lightning.

The chance of that happening and a revolver not being sufficient are near zero.

And even less of being a victim of a mass shooting. But you act like it's a daily thing in every state the way you're carrying on.

I listen to our police scanner all the time. I know what goes on here. Don't you tell me what my odds are of needing a firearm until you walked in my shoes.

Your ballet shoes I think I will pass on. But my size 11 combat boots says I have walked in some pretty big shoes. And I don't feel the need to be armed at all times. The closest thing to a threat I can see is one neighbor that is alt-right and worships Trump and Guns. For him, I have guns in case he goes off. But I don't carry one when I go outside. It's a hassle to work in the shop wearing one considering if you are smart, you will even take off your watch and rings. It's a hassle working on the truck with that thing hooking on everything. And when I need to get parts, it's a hassle to go inside and put the gun on, better to just go get the parts and be done with it.

I'll say this again. If you fear for you or your families safety where you live maybe you should move to an area that you won't feel the need to have that fear. Unless you are the one that everyone else fears then you should just eat the muzzle.

Well that's the success story of our nation: if things get too bad, just run away.

In the city, it takes money to move to a safer area; money many of us don't have. My sister and aunt recently sold their homes to move out, and now my mother is considering the same although even if she finds something, it will be so small for the money she will get from her home that she'll live the rest of her life in misery.

My aunt moved in with her daughter, and my sister makes nearly six figures a year. Even then, she is now complaining about her new mortgage since she didn't have one with her former home. Because it's a townhouse, she has to pay maintenance fees on top of it.

Point is you can't look at the entire country from your size 11 shoes. You have to understand that different environments require different levels of protection. You can't say "I don't need a gun for self-defense so nobody does!" That's just plain ignorance.

In many ways, thinking you have to be armed at all times IS a form of running away. If your neighborhood is unsafe and you feel you have to carry all the time then three things must happen

1. Help change the neighborhood through other methods than shooting anyone.

2. Move to a safer neighborhood. Why would you want to jepordize your family by staying in Syria? And that is one of the very few places on Earth I would suggest you go armed at all time. Otherwise, move your family to a safer home.

3. Leave it like it is and just stand vigil at all times. This is not a way to live life.

I live alone so I have nobody to worry about but myself. People running away is how this neighborhood got to where it's at in the first place.

I never said I carry all the time. I carry mostly when I'm going out or expecting to be coming home after dark, or at times when I make a night deposit at the bank.

There is only so much one can do to save a neighborhood or improve it. When bad people move in--good people move out and there is nothing you can do about it. It's against the law to stop the bad people from moving in and there is no law to stop good people moving out.

I thought you were talking about the entire state of Illinois....

 

[beagle9]

1. Promote two parent families.
2. Get more conservative judges on the bench so we could bring back being committed.
3. Allow God and religion back into mainstream American society.
4. Eliminate all gun-free zones outside of some government buildings.

That's your "solution" to gun violence?

Why not add "give everyone a puppy"?

Wouldn't hurt, are you against puppies ??? Do tell ....

 

[Rustic]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

Oh, they do. Their solution is to arm everyone, because apparently this will somehow work. Yeah, more guns will mean more people die, which will then destroy humans in the US and when they're all dead, there won't be any gun crime.

Funny I never said anything about arming everyone
I do know disarming everyone (who would obey the law) won't lower the murder rate

'Because I disagree with most of what you have to say (your fruitcake logic) does that mean that I want to disarm everyone? No, just the crazy people and it appears you may fit that definition.

It's the classic camel's nose under the tent

So you ban the Ar 15 then the next school shooter uses a Mini 14 then you want to ban that gun so the Mini 14 gets banned and the next school shooter uses a different semiauto then you want to ban that because it was used in a school shooting etc etc etc

Yep, A semi automatic is semi automatic... no matter what letters you use to describe it.
Like I’ve always said progressives are fucked in the head

 

[Rustic]

Well, you could throw everyone who owns and/or sells a gun to someone whom is not active in the military/police department into jail for 10 years without parole?

But somehow, I don't think gun bunnies would go for that idea.

Lol
You’re fucking retarded...

 

[Lesh]

These mass shootings virtually always involve high- capacity rapid-fire weapons.
There is absolutely no rational reason an ordinary citizen (that is, excluding law-enforcement and military), needs to have such a lethal weapon.
The only reason an ordinary citizen needs a gun is for hunting or target shooting, and the remote possibility that he might need to defend his home at some point.
If you own a gun, you have a responsibility to maintain it, and your competence in handling it. Target shooting is very educational, and hunting is a thrill. Get them both, and you'll have a ball, and, with luck no-one will be killed accidentally in the process.
But, if you need an AR15, you should get a LOT of education, before you go hunting!

you need to learn what a semiautomatic weapon is maybe then you will realize that it is nothing but a semiautomatic rifle just like any other that has been available to the public for over 100 years

He probably knows. The AR15 IS a rapid fire weapon. Even with just semi auto. It came into being as the AR-15 Model 601 and has seen a ton of battles in Combat. There is little difference between the AR-15 Model 760 and the AR-15 Model 601. That means that there is little difference between the modern AR-15 and it's clones and the M-4. It has features to help a scared shitless skinny young kid carry it for long periods of time and put a lot of lead into the enemy. The normal operation of the M-4 is semi auto and that means it's so close to the AR-15 model 760 there isn't enough to argue about. Yet, you do argue.

The first thing that we have to do to stop the mass shootings of today is to get rid of the AR Cult. And you demonstrate why each and every time you post.

one shot per trigger pull is not rapid fire

There you go again. One shot per trigger pull. A non bump stock AR-15 might have trouble making 120 rounds a minute. But with a bump stock, it does many times that amount. That means that it IS a MG. You can keep going on like this but you are just digging yourself deeper.

Lol
Dip shit, Ar15’s are not military grade... And they do not shoot off hundreds of rounds a minute… Because they are not military grade... see epic failure

8 minutes of near continuous machine gun firing....and how many hundreds (thousands?) of rounds?

I don't know what you think you proved there genius but Paduch managed quite well in Vegas.

FIVE HUNDRED people shot in minutes

 

[Rustic]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

Oh, they do. Their solution is to arm everyone, because apparently this will somehow work. Yeah, more guns will mean more people die, which will then destroy humans in the US and when they're all dead, there won't be any gun crime.

Funny I never said anything about arming everyone
I do know disarming everyone (who would obey the law) won't lower the murder rate

'Because I disagree with most of what you have to say (your fruitcake logic) does that mean that I want to disarm everyone? No, just the crazy people and it appears you may fit that definition.

It's the classic camel's nose under the tent

So you ban the Ar 15 then the next school shooter uses a Mini 14 then you want to ban that gun so the Mini 14 gets banned and the next school shooter uses a different semiauto then you want to ban that because it was used in a school shooting

The Mini 14 is downright cumbersome for that use. While it may have similar performance when shooting, it's a real pain to change the mags out. The reason the AR-14 Model 601 designed the mag and charging system like it was was for some scared shitless young kid to not be allowed to make stupid mistakes. As much as I liked the M-14 (what the mini 14 copies) I know I can throw a whole bunch more lead on target with a M-4 and have it many pounds lighter. The same goes for why the AR-15 in a shooting is superior to the Mini 14. The Mini 14 owes it's design to the M-1. While the M-1 was superior in it's day, in it's day there were some real nightmare combat rifles out there. The M-1 made it look easy. But the AR doesn't make it look easy, it IS easy.

ARs make great sporting rifles

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

These mass shootings virtually always involve high- capacity rapid-fire weapons.
There is absolutely no rational reason an ordinary citizen (that is, excluding law-enforcement and military), needs to have such a lethal weapon.
The only reason an ordinary citizen needs a gun is for hunting or target shooting, and the remote possibility that he might need to defend his home at some point.
If you own a gun, you have a responsibility to maintain it, and your competence in handling it. Target shooting is very educational, and hunting is a thrill. Get them both, and you'll have a ball, and, with luck no-one will be killed accidentally in the process.
But, if you need an AR15, you should get a LOT of education, before you go hunting!

you need to learn what a semiautomatic weapon is maybe then you will realize that it is nothing but a semiautomatic rifle just like any other that has been available to the public for over 100 years

He probably knows. The AR15 IS a rapid fire weapon. Even with just semi auto. It came into being as the AR-15 Model 601 and has seen a ton of battles in Combat. There is little difference between the AR-15 Model 760 and the AR-15 Model 601. That means that there is little difference between the modern AR-15 and it's clones and the M-4. It has features to help a scared shitless skinny young kid carry it for long periods of time and put a lot of lead into the enemy. The normal operation of the M-4 is semi auto and that means it's so close to the AR-15 model 760 there isn't enough to argue about. Yet, you do argue.

The first thing that we have to do to stop the mass shootings of today is to get rid of the AR Cult. And you demonstrate why each and every time you post.

Lol
You don’t solve anything by taking from law-abiding citizens, Who are you to say who owns what when it comes to small arms? fuck off

Reminder. We HAD a 10 year ban on sales of assault weapons and not only did the sky not fall but mass shootings declined...only to rise again after the ban was lifted

It didn't rise until after the Ferguson effect went into play. Every expert on the gun ban stated it didn't do a lick of good, or are you only trying to solve mass murders and to hell with the 99% of other murders?

Can you tell me what the difference is besides media hype between somebody that goes into a building and kills 10 people, or a weekend in Chicago where 10 people are killed individually?

There is no difference. Either way 10 people are dead in each place. But the 10 in Chicago will not make it to national media in most cases. The 10 in one building will be splattered across the news for several days.

 

[Rustic]

you need to learn what a semiautomatic weapon is maybe then you will realize that it is nothing but a semiautomatic rifle just like any other that has been available to the public for over 100 years

He probably knows. The AR15 IS a rapid fire weapon. Even with just semi auto. It came into being as the AR-15 Model 601 and has seen a ton of battles in Combat. There is little difference between the AR-15 Model 760 and the AR-15 Model 601. That means that there is little difference between the modern AR-15 and it's clones and the M-4. It has features to help a scared shitless skinny young kid carry it for long periods of time and put a lot of lead into the enemy. The normal operation of the M-4 is semi auto and that means it's so close to the AR-15 model 760 there isn't enough to argue about. Yet, you do argue.

The first thing that we have to do to stop the mass shootings of today is to get rid of the AR Cult. And you demonstrate why each and every time you post.

one shot per trigger pull is not rapid fire

There you go again. One shot per trigger pull. A non bump stock AR-15 might have trouble making 120 rounds a minute. But with a bump stock, it does many times that amount. That means that it IS a MG. You can keep going on like this but you are just digging yourself deeper.

Lol
Dip shit, Ar15’s are not military grade... And they do not shoot off hundreds of rounds a minute… Because they are not military grade... see epic failure

8 minutes of near continuous machine gun firing....and how many hundreds (thousands?) of rounds?

I don't know what you think you proved there genius but Paduch managed quite well in Vegas.

FIVE HUNDRED people shot in minutes

Lol
Somewhere around 300 rds = epic failure
Hardly an impressive firearm....

 

[Rustic]

one shot per trigger pull is not rapid fire

There you go again. One shot per trigger pull. A non bump stock AR-15 might have trouble making 120 rounds a minute. But with a bump stock, it does many times that amount. That means that it IS a MG. You can keep going on like this but you are just digging yourself deeper.

again where have I ever mentioned bump stocks

I mentioned it and you disagreed that it was a Machine Gun, fruitcake.

you said it was a machine gun by definition and you as usual were wrong

Feeble Old man

It's difficult to answer you without insulting because your posts are so out there. But you can nit pick all you want but it doesn't change the fact that an AR with a bump stock simulates a full Auto AR-15 Model 602 also called a M-16A-1. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a friggin duck.

Lol
A string/rubber band will do the same thing... Nice try asshole

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

1. Promote two parent families.
2. Get more conservative judges on the bench so we could bring back being committed.
3. Allow God and religion back into mainstream American society.
4. Eliminate all gun-free zones outside of some government buildings.

That's your "solution" to gun violence?

Why not add "give everyone a puppy"?

If I thought it would work, I would do just that.

It took many years to get to the point we are at now; years of liberalism and do-gooder policies. The problem is liberals won't stop even today. In fact they promote these ideas of theirs even more.

Now that the results of their policies are known to all of us, your solution is to keep those policies in play, but take away the guns and everything will be just fine. That's like trying to bail water out of a boat with a bigger bucket and continue putting more holes in the boat.

 

[Lesh]

It didn't rise until after the Ferguson effect went into play. Every expert on the gun ban stated it didn't do a lick of good, or are you only trying to solve mass murders and to hell with the 99% of other murders?

If you're talking about the number of mass shootings before during and after the assault weapons ban...you're lying.

Mass shootings declined during the ban and increased after it ended.

 

[Rustic]

then you should be happy mass shooters like the .223 since it wasn't designed to kill. Just think of the death toll if mass shooters used 6.8 or 7.62 rounds

and a .223 kills rabid skunks, raccoons and coyotes just fine thank you very much

School is in
Think about what you have just said. Let's look at the 6.8. It's about the same length but a bigger diameter in both bullet and cartridge. The cartridge is made up of a very light and strong composite. The weight is less than the 556 or 223 so you don't add weight. It's being designed for WAR just like the 556 was designed for war. It just does it a bit better at a longer range. So you don't give up the amount of ammo you can carry but have a more effective weapon of war.

They replaced the M-14 with the M-16 because the weight of the gun and the weight of the ammo. The M-14 was far superior in a firefight but you ran out of ammo too fast. The 7.62 or 308 is the far superior cartridge but it's heavy in comparison therefore you can't carry as many rounds. Plus, due to the power of the cartridge, the gun has to be larger and heavier. You wouldn't know this because you haven't spent 16 hours force marching from point A to B with 80lbs of other equipment on your back. Every ounce saved.......

Now, about the 223, most school shootings are done close up. The 223 will kill larger game (meaning us) easily at close range. And since you have so many rounds, don't worry about wasting it. Even if the aftermath looks like a battle zone, it's not. You have ammo to burn. Before you run out of ammo you will run out of time and you only have a few minutes to operate until the Cops take you out or you put the muzzle in your mouth. And most shooters are part of the AR Cult. No dues, no memberships just insanity. You are part of that AR Cult. the only difference is, you don't have the guts to go out and do a mass shooting yourself in the name of the Revolution. The only reason that Vegas Shooting had such a high body count at that range was he through hundreds of rounds out very fast. It's like throwing a bunch of rocks at a wall full of balloons. Some will hit and most will miss but if you throw enough, you can burst almost all the balloons. This is the method of the Full Auto M-16 or the AR-15 with a bump stock. This has been abandoned by even the Military. But it's not ineffective when you have a target rich environment like a theater, school or Club. The 223 does exactly what it was originally invented to do at that point.

You are part of a cult. And the way to stop mass shootings is to outlaw the cult. Maybe we should handle it like any other violent cult and just start arresting the cult leaders.

You don't know what you are talking about, the majority of mass shootings are done with pistols......

If I took the total deaths from "Mass Shootings" by pistols for the last 10 years, all of them would not equal even one that an AR was used. Most "Mass Shootings" by a pistol deaths you can count on one hand. For most of the "Mass Shootings" where they used an AR you are going to have to count on both hands, both feet and drop your pants for the count and still not have enough.

MAss shooting account for 1% of all murders

Rifles of any kind are only used in 2% of all murders

the AR is used in less that 1% of all murders

you are barking up the wrong tree as usual

But we all know you don't give a shit about lowering the murder rate as much as you care about controlling others

If we can save even one life, it's worth it, nutcase.

More frivolous gun control laws will not save a single soul… Dip shit

 

[Skull Pilot]

and you don't need a bump stock to bump fire

He could have done the same spray and pray with nothing but the belt loop on his jeans or even without that so what do we do ban belt loops now and make everyone wear suspenders?

All the more reason to ban semi-auto weapons

You do know that a revolver is a semiauto don't you?

Of course you don't

 

[2aguy]

These mass shootings virtually always involve high- capacity rapid-fire weapons.
There is absolutely no rational reason an ordinary citizen (that is, excluding law-enforcement and military), needs to have such a lethal weapon.
The only reason an ordinary citizen needs a gun is for hunting or target shooting, and the remote possibility that he might need to defend his home at some point.
If you own a gun, you have a responsibility to maintain it, and your competence in handling it. Target shooting is very educational, and hunting is a thrill. Get them both, and you'll have a ball, and, with luck no-one will be killed accidentally in the process.
But, if you need an AR15, you should get a LOT of education, before you go hunting!

Here...some actual research into magazines and mass shootings....

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.


LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.


News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.

There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.

In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.


Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

You back to using Kleck as the source? He's the one that lumped all the shootings together including Cops and Military and came up with his figures. His math is crackpot. Your bunch has been using his information for all kinds of claims and those claims are just as much a crackpot as he is.

No...he did not put police and military together... you are lying....he states that those two categories were not part of his sample, since he asked the people if the defensive use was part of cops or military.....you don't know what you are talking about....

The Centers for Disease control...1.1 million times..... the Department of Justice...1.5 million times.... so no, his numbers are not off......

There you go again. No one has ever posted that information directly from CDC. Therefore, it doesn't exist. And that is what Kleck contends that he is using for his output. But his math is flawed and none of us have ever seen that CDC report. I want you to produce it. Not some site claiming to have seen it bu the report itself from CDC.

Moron...Kleck lists the numbers directly from the CDC research, which they didn't put out publicly after their numbers came back so high for defensive gun use.....

Dipstick.... here is the paper and the links to the CDC research is in the footnotes...

What Do CDC's Surveys Say About the Frequency of Defensive Gun Uses? by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is no 'solution' that keeps everyone happy

The gun huggers have ZERO solutions because they see no problem

Want to stop school shootings?

Don't let people with guns just walk into a school willy nilly like they always seem to do