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

[jc456]

Well......loud is how you are heard. The left is loud via MSM. We don't have that, so we need to yell louder. All we really have is AM radio and Fox news. The MSM, Hollywood, education, the internet is all dominated by the left.

But because we yell louder doesn't mean we are wrong either.

In an 8 hour period in there, I saw just a couple or three posts by a few people. But there were 64 posts by the same 4 people trying to yell down everyone else though insulting posts. Your bunch tries to bury everyone elses inputs. It's hard to weed through all the Insulting Posts to get to the meat of the subject. Once your posts goes into the loud venue, people just stop reading it and your real message is lost whether its right or not.

So what you are saying is the left does not "yell?"

What you're really upset about is not the number of posts, but that you are outnumbered. The majority on this subject are pro-gun. Therefore for every one post a leftist makes, it's battled with four opposition posts regardless of who posts them. Insults? That comes from both sides if you've been here long enough to realize it. I object to insulting posts unless one is reacting to a personal attack. I do that myself, but I never draw first blood.

I like civil discussions when it comes to politics. Insults are teen chat room exchanges. I avoid participating with flamers if possible. Speaking for myself only of course, I conduct myself here as if we were discussing issues at a bar or club in person. I don't believe in hiding behind a keyboard and tossing insults at people that may be 500 miles or more from where I live.

I am so difficult to handle there ain't enough of you to go around. So you just get LOUD. I am not loud but I do have a message without the petty insults to try and make myself look smarter, better looking, etc.. I have noticed that you are easier to read than most. I just don't particularly agree with everything you have to say. But, hey, that's what makes life interesting.

Yes, the Left Yells but I don't. But I find, in here, the major source of "Yelling" is from the fringe group of guncrazies. Rather than discuss and actually coming up with a solution (and yes, any solution I see I will pass on to other voters) they start in insulting and degrading the other person. I can't speak for MSN since I don't listen to that. I can't speak for Talk Radio since I don't listen to that. And I can't speak for
Pauxsnews since I don't watch nor listen to that. I speak for myself and the community for which I live in who have made changes to confront all the evils that are being shouted out to cover up an chance of coming to a solution. Newsflash: There is always a solution for most problems if we stop yelling and insulting each other long enough.

Right now, the Right needs to clean it's act in here and out of here. Do it before you lose more than you can afford to lose. And put a cork on the NRA meddling in local elections. One of the reasons so many Dems were elected into the house is that the NRA put money against the other side and the voters said enough. And the people voted in are Moderates. That should scare the hell out of everyone that is in the fringe on both sides.

Very few people base their vote on gun issues unless the left is once again making threats.

You want NRA money out of our politics? Fine with me, I'll work on that and you work on getting that union money out of the hands of Democrats; that trial lawyer money so our manufacturers can't get sued because somebody took their new toaster in the shower with them; that Sierra Club money that leads to very costly and job killing regulations.

This is not a one-way street you know.........

The Unions are not against you buying a gun of any kind. But the NRA directly works for the Gun Manufacturers and comes up with some pretty strange things to help bolster those sales. The Unions have a very broad concept (whether you agree with them or not) but the NRA only has one single concept, PR to sell more guns. Apples and Oranges.

BTW, I was a member of a few Unions and don't hold that a Union should be able to use my Dues to pay for the "Leaders" political views. This is just plain wrong. It would be nice if they were left completely out of Politics but, like any other Corporation, they find ways around that. What we need to do is tighten up the 501 laws to prevent any of these from getting into Politics. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has made them equal to a human being. Put an end to that and we get a huge amount of money out of Politics.

Dude you think the nra wants people dead! Your thoughts are unrealistic and stupid. There’s no supporting evidence

 

[2aguy]

They have a documentary series on Showtime called "Active Shooter" where they actually interviewed the people in the theater..... they also spoke to the Pschiatrist who examined the shooter...

We also know he targeted that theater because it was a gun free zone, he originally wanted to target the airport but they had too much armed security....

Back to the shooting........ he told the Shrink that he wanted the shooting to be completely impersonal....so when he walked into the theater and began shooting, he did not shoot the people right in front of him, you know, the easist victims to shoot...he fired over their heads and into the rows in the back, and, in fact, when he was leaving, he looked into the eyes of a girl right in front of him, she laughed...he asked the shrink about that and the Shrink told him it was likely a nervous reaction....the shooter stated since he made eye contact with the girl, he did not shoot her, it would have been too personal...

Also....he was wearing a gas mask which blocked his vision and he also threw smoke grenades, also obscuring his vision .....

What saved lives was the dark theater, he couldn't see any better than the victims..... and with the AR-15 he wasn't able to do better than 12 people.....the shooter in Crimea using a 5 shot, pump action shotgun murdered 21 people, college students, not kindergarteners......

So you intentionally dismiss the fact that almost all of the Aurora victims were shot with the AR?

And the Crimea incident had a 10 minute killing window despite the fact that there was a police station across the street. The response time in PA was TWO minutes. That gave the shooter the luxury of repeatedly loading shells one by one. And any time a shooter is loading...victims can escape or potentially counter him. With drop out magazines that simply isn't a possibility.

And you dismiss the fact that a 5 shot, pump action shotgun killed more people, 21 than an AR-15 rifle at Parkland, 18, Colorado, 12, or the Synagogue, 11.........

And the information I showed you the research that looked at mass shootings and magazine capacity showed that the time to reload a magazine makes no difference since the rate of fire from a mass shooter at unarmed people does not allow them to escape.....you want to completely ignore that......

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

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?

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.

--------





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.




-----


-----
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.

 

[beagle9]

ARs are just sporting rifles... dip shit

Then how are they a defense against an over reaching government with an actual military?

Words, social media, lawsuits, and many other methods are used against an over reaching government. Hopefully it don't ever reach the point of rebellion because not only would the people rebel, but those in the military would defect as well. Done seen nations crumble when they thought nothing could stop an out of control tyrannical government.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

you mean for someone who doesn't know shit about firearms but thinks he has the tight to tell others what forearms they need or don't need.

The .223 is a higher velocity round sure but it is still a .22 caliber

Wow. I thought you actually knew something about the subject. Obviously you don't

Not only are .223s jacketed (ya know like a military round) they have far more propellant and are bigger. The average size of a .223 is 50gr. They can be bigger. The largest .22 long rifle is 40 gr. Longs and shorts are obviously smaller. Typically .22 LR is not jacketed...so has less penetration power.

.22 LR are "effective" to only 150 yds. the .223 is effective to 300 yards...a testament to its increased power

You really need to just stop talking

Lol
What do you mean by jacketed like a military round? All hunting “rounds” jacketed in one way or another or they are copper altogether.
Where do you get your information from the Clinton news network?

150 yards? Not 200? not 250? Lol
Affective out to 300 yards? On what? But not effective out to 350 or 400?

You’re just talking shit..

While he was wrong about the Jacketing he isn't wrong abut the range. One of the problems our troops have in the Middle East is that the bad guys started using the larger and longer ranged battle rifles that could go easily out to 800 yds. The 556 could only go out to a maximum of 400 yards before it pretty much left the useful ballistics. At 350yds, you won't be doing that neat little grouping. It's going to be a bit irratic as the bullet is starting to lose it's mind. The 223 is designed for less than 200 yds and is generally used at less than 100. If you claim to do a nice tight grouping at 400 yds, you are just plain lying. I would say that anything past 250 yds, you are using the wrong caliber. But that's just me since I have shot thousands of rounds of 556 and 7.62.

 

[Lesh]

Now you'e not being open minded in the slightest. Guns do good things such as self-defense and yes, hunting. Up here we are loaded with deer that have to be culled in certain areas. Where it's illegal to hunt the government has to come in to thin the herds out. I'm sure most people who live out in the sticks will tell you how beneficial being able to kill an animal is.

Been hunting deer since I was 12. A pump action shotgun works just fine. If you're inclined to longer ranges most serious hunters use bolt action rifles in the .30 calibre range.

I have also taken dear with a bow.

You do NOT need an assault weapon to hunt. In fact it's not a particularly good weapon for deer hunting

 

[jc456]

ARs are just sporting rifles... dip shit

Then how are they a defense against an over reaching government with an actual military?

Words, social media, lawsuits, and many other methods are used against an over reaching government. Hopefully it don't ever reach the point of rebellion because not only would the people rebel, but those in the military would defect as well. Done seen nations crumble when they thought nothing could stop an out of control tyrannical government.

Congressman Swalwell wants to nuke Americans to confiscate their guns. Yeah, let’s turn em in! LOL, he just gave you and me the reason for the second amendment

 

[Lesh]

All hunting “rounds” jacketed in one way or another or they are copper altogether.

But we were told that a .22LR was a viable deer round. You did nothing to dissuade that particularly stupid comment.

And being a gun dealer you know that a .22LR is typically NOT jacketed...true?

 

[jc456]

Now you'e not being open minded in the slightest. Guns do good things such as self-defense and yes, hunting. Up here we are loaded with deer that have to be culled in certain areas. Where it's illegal to hunt the government has to come in to thin the herds out. I'm sure most people who live out in the sticks will tell you how beneficial being able to kill an animal is.

Been hunting deer since I was 12. A pump action shotgun works just fine. If you're inclined to longer ranges most serious hunters use bolt action rifles in the .30 calibre range.

I have also taken dear with a bow.

You do NOT need an assault weapon to hunt. In fact it's not a particularly good weapon for deer hunting

See, removing guns doesn’t solve your issue! More evidence against you

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Well......loud is how you are heard. The left is loud via MSM. We don't have that, so we need to yell louder. All we really have is AM radio and Fox news. The MSM, Hollywood, education, the internet is all dominated by the left.

But because we yell louder doesn't mean we are wrong either.

In an 8 hour period in there, I saw just a couple or three posts by a few people. But there were 64 posts by the same 4 people trying to yell down everyone else though insulting posts. Your bunch tries to bury everyone elses inputs. It's hard to weed through all the Insulting Posts to get to the meat of the subject. Once your posts goes into the loud venue, people just stop reading it and your real message is lost whether its right or not.

So what you are saying is the left does not "yell?"

What you're really upset about is not the number of posts, but that you are outnumbered. The majority on this subject are pro-gun. Therefore for every one post a leftist makes, it's battled with four opposition posts regardless of who posts them. Insults? That comes from both sides if you've been here long enough to realize it. I object to insulting posts unless one is reacting to a personal attack. I do that myself, but I never draw first blood.

I like civil discussions when it comes to politics. Insults are teen chat room exchanges. I avoid participating with flamers if possible. Speaking for myself only of course, I conduct myself here as if we were discussing issues at a bar or club in person. I don't believe in hiding behind a keyboard and tossing insults at people that may be 500 miles or more from where I live.

I am so difficult to handle there ain't enough of you to go around. So you just get LOUD. I am not loud but I do have a message without the petty insults to try and make myself look smarter, better looking, etc.. I have noticed that you are easier to read than most. I just don't particularly agree with everything you have to say. But, hey, that's what makes life interesting.

Yes, the Left Yells but I don't. But I find, in here, the major source of "Yelling" is from the fringe group of guncrazies. Rather than discuss and actually coming up with a solution (and yes, any solution I see I will pass on to other voters) they start in insulting and degrading the other person. I can't speak for MSN since I don't listen to that. I can't speak for Talk Radio since I don't listen to that. And I can't speak for
Pauxsnews since I don't watch nor listen to that. I speak for myself and the community for which I live in who have made changes to confront all the evils that are being shouted out to cover up an chance of coming to a solution. Newsflash: There is always a solution for most problems if we stop yelling and insulting each other long enough.

Right now, the Right needs to clean it's act in here and out of here. Do it before you lose more than you can afford to lose. And put a cork on the NRA meddling in local elections. One of the reasons so many Dems were elected into the house is that the NRA put money against the other side and the voters said enough. And the people voted in are Moderates. That should scare the hell out of everyone that is in the fringe on both sides.

Very few people base their vote on gun issues unless the left is once again making threats.

You want NRA money out of our politics? Fine with me, I'll work on that and you work on getting that union money out of the hands of Democrats; that trial lawyer money so our manufacturers can't get sued because somebody took their new toaster in the shower with them; that Sierra Club money that leads to very costly and job killing regulations.

This is not a one-way street you know.........

The Unions are not against you buying a gun of any kind. But the NRA directly works for the Gun Manufacturers and comes up with some pretty strange things to help bolster those sales. The Unions have a very broad concept (whether you agree with them or not) but the NRA only has one single concept, PR to sell more guns. Apples and Oranges.

BTW, I was a member of a few Unions and don't hold that a Union should be able to use my Dues to pay for the "Leaders" political views. This is just plain wrong. It would be nice if they were left completely out of Politics but, like any other Corporation, they find ways around that. What we need to do is tighten up the 501 laws to prevent any of these from getting into Politics. Unfortunately, the SCOTUS has made them equal to a human being. Put an end to that and we get a huge amount of money out of Politics.

I never said the unions were against me buying a gun. My point was that unions donate money (just like the NRA) to have politicians support their position. This is particularly true with government unions. The government gives raises and benefits to government employees, the unions take a chunk of their collections and payoff the politicians that gave their members a raise. It's virtually money laundering; something the NRA doesn't do.

 

[Rustic]

you mean for someone who doesn't know shit about firearms but thinks he has the tight to tell others what forearms they need or don't need.

The .223 is a higher velocity round sure but it is still a .22 caliber

Wow. I thought you actually knew something about the subject. Obviously you don't

Not only are .223s jacketed (ya know like a military round) they have far more propellant and are bigger. The average size of a .223 is 50gr. They can be bigger. The largest .22 long rifle is 40 gr. Longs and shorts are obviously smaller. Typically .22 LR is not jacketed...so has less penetration power.

.22 LR are "effective" to only 150 yds. the .223 is effective to 300 yards...a testament to its increased power

You really need to just stop talking

Lol
What do you mean by jacketed like a military round? All hunting “rounds” jacketed in one way or another or they are copper altogether.
Where do you get your information from the Clinton news network?

150 yards? Not 200? not 250? Lol
Affective out to 300 yards? On what? But not effective out to 350 or 400?

You’re just talking shit..

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Thank you for proving that 223 can't hack it. At that range, a heavy coat will stop the bullet cold. Even a heavy shirt will stop it. It's only 143ftlbs. And you notice that a few were hits but generally, it was all over the place. They didn't use an AR, they used pretty much a match rifle and you can bet the shooter was an Expert. It's a lark,nothing more. Do that same shot with a Model 70 308 and you will get a more consistent grouping and enough power left to get the kill.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Crimea 2 weeks ago, 5 shot, pump action shotgun against college students.... 21 dead.

Can you read?

IN THIS COUNTRY

The Crimea attack occurred across the street from a police station and the response was incredibly slow.

The Pittsburg shooting that just occurred was responded to in like TWO minutes

W Virginia was NOT a shotgun attack stupid. You evene noted that

The point that flew right over your blunt little head is that a person hell bent on killing people doesn't need a rifle and if you ban one weapon then that person who is hell bent on murder will simply use a different weapon

Using other forms of weapons to kill require some skill and many times some danger to the killer. A gun is also not personal, it is used to arbitrarily kill without concern for humanity in general.

In fact most mass murderers want to die in a blaze of gunfire, and we cannot know what is inside the mind of those who engage in this sort of aberrant behavior.

The Best Way to reduce mass murder IMO is to require everyone who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a License and for all weapons to be registered.

I've outlined why many times, and each time the same whine echoes around this theme, the wording of the 2nd A.

Let's parse this amendment, and see if we can agree on how it should be interpreted.

Let's look beyond the amendment and discuss Art I, Sec 8, clauses 15 & 16.

In the last sentence of clause 16 (to wit: "reserving to the states respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of Training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress") the current interpretation by the NRA and its followers is that emphasis on the right of the people.

Yet in practice, this phrase implies no one can be denied the right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun. And yet, some forms of guns are outlawed (Zip Guns for example) and others regulated (fully automatic) and some people are denied the right as expressed by Scalia in Heller.

16 leaves the authority to the states to appoint officers and train the militia. Consider if every governor has that authority, and using guidance from The Congress appoint officers (likely retired & honorably discharged vets) to recruit, vet and train volunteers to serve and become weekend warriors as contractors?

 

[Rustic]

Pretty dogs carry the black plague… There are far too many of them, they deserve to die...

PRAIRIE dogs...can be hunted with a friggin .22. Hell you can use a tube loaded semi-auto for all I care. You can use a lever action 30-30 if you want to pay a buck a shot.

You DON'T need an assault weapon.

But note...Rustic SELLS guns so it's in his interest to sell as many as possible

Lol
ARs are just sporting rifles...
Damn right I sell firearms for a living it’s my livelihood...

 

[Skull Pilot]

you mean for someone who doesn't know shit about firearms but thinks he has the tight to tell others what forearms they need or don't need.

The .223 is a higher velocity round sure but it is still a .22 caliber

Wow. I thought you actually knew something about the subject. Obviously you don't

Not only are .223s jacketed (ya know like a military round) they have far more propellant and are bigger. The average size of a .223 is 50gr. They can be bigger. The largest .22 long rifle is 40 gr. Longs and shorts are obviously smaller. Typically .22 LR is not jacketed...so has less penetration power.

.22 LR are "effective" to only 150 yds. the .223 is effective to 300 yards...a testament to its increased power

You really need to just stop talking

The reason is it is a FASTER round

Kinetic energy is greater the faster a round travels
an unjacketed round and a jacketed round traveling at the same velocity will do the same amount of damage to soft tissue

 

[jc456]

Crimea 2 weeks ago, 5 shot, pump action shotgun against college students.... 21 dead.

Can you read?

IN THIS COUNTRY

The Crimea attack occurred across the street from a police station and the response was incredibly slow.

The Pittsburg shooting that just occurred was responded to in like TWO minutes

W Virginia was NOT a shotgun attack stupid. You evene noted that

The point that flew right over your blunt little head is that a person hell bent on killing people doesn't need a rifle and if you ban one weapon then that person who is hell bent on murder will simply use a different weapon

Using other forms of weapons to kill require some skill and many times some danger to the killer. A gun is also not personal, it is used to arbitrarily kill without concern for humanity in general.

In fact most mass murderers want to die in a blaze of gunfire, and we cannot know what is inside the mind of those who engage in this sort of aberrant behavior.

The Best Way to reduce mass murder IMO is to require everyone who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a License and for all weapons to be registered.

I've outlined why many times, and each time the same whine echoes around this theme, the wording of the 2nd A.

Let's parse this amendment, and see if we can agree on how it should be interpreted.

Let's look beyond the amendment and discuss Art I, Sec 8, clauses 15 & 16.

In the last sentence of clause 16 (to wit: "reserving to the states respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of Training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress") the current interpretation by the NRA and its followers is that emphasis on the right of the people.

Yet in practice, this phrase implies no one can be denied the right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun. And yet, some forms of guns are outlawed (Zip Guns for example) and others regulated (fully automatic) and some people are denied the right as expressed by Scalia in Heller.

16 leaves the authority to the states to appoint officers and train the militia. Consider if every governor has that authority, and using guidance from The Congress appoint officers (likely retired & honorably discharged vets) to recruit, vet and train volunteers to serve and become weekend warriors as contractors?

You answered your own question, someone who wants to commit mass murder will. The weapon is immaterial

 

[Daryl Hunt]

ARs are just sporting rifles... dip shit

Then how are they a defense against an over reaching government with an actual military?

Words, social media, lawsuits, and many other methods are used against an over reaching government. Hopefully it don't ever reach the point of rebellion because not only would the people rebel, but those in the military would defect as well. Done seen nations crumble when they thought nothing could stop an out of control tyrannical government.

Nice sound bite. But if you decide to overthrow the Government, that is contrary to each every service members Oath, customs and traditions. The ones that would cross over are probably going to be more trouble than they are worth and the US Military will be a better place without them. but you still will be facing HEAVY weapons that you don't have. I am sure you can black market a 105 Howitzer but practice with it is another thing. That Artillery Piece will be heard for miles and you ARE going to get visitors.

 

[Rustic]

Thank you for proving that 223 can't hack it. At that range, a heavy coat will stop the bullet cold. Even a heavy shirt will stop it. It's only 143ftlbs. And you notice that a few were hits but generally, it was all over the place. They didn't use an AR, they used pretty much a match rifle and you can bet the shooter was an Expert. It's a lark,nothing more. Do that same shot with a Model 70 308 and you will get a more consistent grouping and enough power left to get the kill.

Lol
I was just saying that 300 yards is not the limit... ARs can we set up just as accurate but they would be considerably more in the cost department...
Obviously an 308 Has Way more stopping power but that wasn’t the subject was it?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

you mean for someone who doesn't know shit about firearms but thinks he has the tight to tell others what forearms they need or don't need.

The .223 is a higher velocity round sure but it is still a .22 caliber

Wow. I thought you actually knew something about the subject. Obviously you don't

Not only are .223s jacketed (ya know like a military round) they have far more propellant and are bigger. The average size of a .223 is 50gr. They can be bigger. The largest .22 long rifle is 40 gr. Longs and shorts are obviously smaller. Typically .22 LR is not jacketed...so has less penetration power.

.22 LR are "effective" to only 150 yds. the .223 is effective to 300 yards...a testament to its increased power

You really need to just stop talking

The reason is it is a FASTER round

Kinetic energy is greater the faster a round travels
an unjacketed round and a jacketed round traveling at the same velocity will do the same amount of damage to soft tissue

No, the jacketed will get a better penetration and hold the ballistics better making it able to make longer shots and do more damage with it's penetration. But in the 223s case, it's still a short ranged cartridge. And not even an average for the other high powered 22s.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Crimea 2 weeks ago, 5 shot, pump action shotgun against college students.... 21 dead.

Can you read?

IN THIS COUNTRY

The Crimea attack occurred across the street from a police station and the response was incredibly slow.

The Pittsburg shooting that just occurred was responded to in like TWO minutes

W Virginia was NOT a shotgun attack stupid. You evene noted that

The point that flew right over your blunt little head is that a person hell bent on killing people doesn't need a rifle and if you ban one weapon then that person who is hell bent on murder will simply use a different weapon

Using other forms of weapons to kill require some skill and many times some danger to the killer. A gun is also not personal, it is used to arbitrarily kill without concern for humanity in general.

In fact most mass murderers want to die in a blaze of gunfire, and we cannot know what is inside the mind of those who engage in this sort of aberrant behavior.

The Best Way to reduce mass murder IMO is to require everyone who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a License and for all weapons to be registered.

I've outlined why many times, and each time the same whine echoes around this theme, the wording of the 2nd A.

Let's parse this amendment, and see if we can agree on how it should be interpreted.

Let's look beyond the amendment and discuss Art I, Sec 8, clauses 15 & 16.

In the last sentence of clause 16 (to wit: "reserving to the states respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of Training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress") the current interpretation by the NRA and its followers is that emphasis on the right of the people.

Yet in practice, this phrase implies no one can be denied the right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun. And yet, some forms of guns are outlawed (Zip Guns for example) and others regulated (fully automatic) and some people are denied the right as expressed by Scalia in Heller.

16 leaves the authority to the states to appoint officers and train the militia. Consider if every governor has that authority, and using guidance from The Congress appoint officers (likely retired & honorably discharged vets) to recruit, vet and train volunteers to serve and become weekend warriors as contractors?

It takes no skill to drive a truck through a crowd.

and if a person wants to walk into a place and start shooting he isn't going to care if his gun is registered or not.

Anyone hell bent on killing will kill and you cannot stop it.

I'm not going to argue the militia aspect. The Bill of rights is a protection of the rights of the people not the rights of states or of state militias.

 

[2aguy]

Crimea 2 weeks ago, 5 shot, pump action shotgun against college students.... 21 dead.

Can you read?

IN THIS COUNTRY

The Crimea attack occurred across the street from a police station and the response was incredibly slow.

The Pittsburg shooting that just occurred was responded to in like TWO minutes

W Virginia was NOT a shotgun attack stupid. You evene noted that

The point that flew right over your blunt little head is that a person hell bent on killing people doesn't need a rifle and if you ban one weapon then that person who is hell bent on murder will simply use a different weapon

Using other forms of weapons to kill require some skill and many times some danger to the killer. A gun is also not personal, it is used to arbitrarily kill without concern for humanity in general.

In fact most mass murderers want to die in a blaze of gunfire, and we cannot know what is inside the mind of those who engage in this sort of aberrant behavior.

The Best Way to reduce mass murder IMO is to require everyone who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a License and for all weapons to be registered.

I've outlined why many times, and each time the same whine echoes around this theme, the wording of the 2nd A.

Let's parse this amendment, and see if we can agree on how it should be interpreted.

Let's look beyond the amendment and discuss Art I, Sec 8, clauses 15 & 16.

In the last sentence of clause 16 (to wit: "reserving to the states respectively, the Appointment of Officers, and the Authority of Training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress") the current interpretation by the NRA and its followers is that emphasis on the right of the people.

Yet in practice, this phrase implies no one can be denied the right to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun. And yet, some forms of guns are outlawed (Zip Guns for example) and others regulated (fully automatic) and some people are denied the right as expressed by Scalia in Heller.

16 leaves the authority to the states to appoint officers and train the militia. Consider if every governor has that authority, and using guidance from The Congress appoint officers (likely retired & honorably discharged vets) to recruit, vet and train volunteers to serve and become weekend warriors as contractors?

The Best Way to reduce mass murder IMO is to require everyone who wants to own, possess or have in their custody and control a License and for all weapons to be registered.

This statement shows you don't care about facts, you simply hate guns......mass shooters are not normal criminals. they can pass any background check, they will a license, and they will register their guns.....they will then take those guns and commit their mass shooting.

The things you listed will only effect law abiding guns owners who do not use their guns for mass murder, and they will not even stop criminals from getting guns.....

What is so hard about that for you to understand...criminals use straw buyers, who will pass background checks, license their guns and register them...and sell them to felons and report them stolen......

Or criminals will steal the guns in the first place since they can't own, buy or carry guns, therefore they can't pass background checks, can't get a license and are not required, by law to register their guns..since that would be a vioaltion of their 5th Amendment right against self incrimination......