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

[Daryl Hunt]

The gun bunny solution to mass shootings?

MORE, FUCKING GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 17.25 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2018...guess what happened...


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

More fake news.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

Lol
And Ar15 is not anything more than a sporting rifle...
I hunt antelope with an Ar15 in 6.8 SPC It is a particularly good hunting rifle for white tails, mule deer and antelope.

A real man wouldn't need a gun to take down anyone of these animals, prehistoric man chased down these animals and used spears to finish the job. Then they used every bit of the animal for food, shelter and tools; they didn't have their picture taken and the head stuffed and put on a wall.

Picture of Trump with animal he shot - Google Search

Odd, I haven't seen any bear meat on the market, did that brave man have a gun backup, that would probably make the rug he wanted less valuable for the great white hunter.

BTW, killing for sport is tantamount to a serial killers pathology. You disgust me!

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

A .223 would not be my first choice for anything larger than a yote, I like .308, 6.8spc and 7mm08 For anything in the lower 48, those would be my first choices.
But for up to 500 yard shots On any type of varmint a .223 is a wonderful cartridge...
More than adequate… And affordable
I’m talking about a dinner plate size of grouping of 500 yards is doable

I will admit I ain't as good as I once was. Not as steady a hand nor nearly as good of eye sight. But hitting anything at 500 yds with a 223 is just silly to try more than a couple of times. And to hit that dinner plate grouping, all things must be perfect. Meanwhile, the 7.62 is less susceptible to those same conditions and can easily do that grouping or tighter. A 223 really doesn't have enough energy left a 500 yds to be taking that kind of shot.

Let's look at the balllistic chart for a 223. You will notice it stops at 400 yds. A 500 yd shot is a hail Mary.

I doubt if you will have even 300 ftlbs of energy left at 500 yds. It starts to fall off very quickly once you go past 200 yds. But it's still usable at 250 yds against small critters. But beyond that, even small critters may survive getting hit by a 223. And at 500 yds, a good coat of fur may stop the bullet from penetrating. Plus, at 500 yds, you are having to elevate the barrel nearly 5 feet. Sorry, most scopes will be unusable at that range since the target will end up below the horizon of the optics.

Those are some terrible shots. In the old days, prarie dog shooting, we would have laughed at them. I shot a Mauser Shavetail 22lr and was good out to about 150 yds. I would go out early and place flags every 50 yds. I fired with all flags were going the same direction and the same flapping speed. It would be ideal is the flags were all inert. I took my time and didn't miss. Why shoot unless you are guarenteed a kill.

Prairie dog shooting, it’s all about the shooting no one hits every prairie dog they are shooting at.
And with 223 it’s cheap... And somewhere around 500 yard shots are doable

I'm from the old school. It it takes more than one, you failed.

 

[McRocket]

The Republican solution to mass shooting?

Shoot all non-Republicans.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

am glad mass shooting idiots have not figured this out yet. With buckshot, one magizine could kill 50-100 people in a tight crowed.

We've had shotgun attacks in this country and they invariably lead to lower body counts.

We've SEEN what assault weapons can do to a crowd

The Vegas shooter had 23 rifles in that room, he was firing from a concealed and fortified position into a tightly packed crowd of over 23,000 people...... that had nothing to do with his rifle, all with his selection of firing position and target...

Sit down, you are fake news.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

And you keep pretending that all weapons are equal.

They aren't

A baseball bat is a weapon...but much less lethal than a machine gun. No?

A shot gun is lethal...but far less lethal than a semi-auto magazine fed assault weapon

A truck with a snow plow is a weapon too.

and arguably as deadly as a firearm.

you're to thick to realize banning one rifle will not stop one murder

Sit down. I don't take questions from Fake News.

 

[jc456]

Our solution...end gun free zones so mass shooters stop targeting schools and churches.

Our solution, lock up known, violent, repeat gun offenders for long prison sentences instead of allowing democrat party politicians and judges to let them out of prison.

Our solution is to focus on mental health issues, to help the dangerously mentally ill, not taking guns away from women who need them to stay safe.

That's it?

Who has proposed any legislation that would FUND mental health issues? Why has the legislation enacted ALLOWED people with mental health issues to buy guns?

WHo is going to fund turning all of our schools into armed fortresses?

You’re too stupid to understand

 

[jc456]

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

And you keep pretending that all weapons are equal.

They aren't

A baseball bat is a weapon...but much less lethal than a machine gun. No?

A shot gun is lethal...but far less lethal than a semi-auto magazine fed assault weapon

A truck with a snow plow is a weapon too.

and arguably as deadly as a firearm.

you're to thick to realize banning one rifle will not stop one murder

Sit down. I don't take questions from Fake News.

Why would you?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Great plan. A fortress door for everyone. All because you fucking idiots need a semi automatic rifle to play with. Get all beered Up & shoot bottles.

Ban these rifles, limit the capacity of all magazines. Take guns from people with violent records, Advance mental screening for concealed carry.

And you have been shown through actual research that banning these rifles is stupid, and that magazine bans are stupid too, they do nothing at all.....yet you blindly hate guns and will do anything you can to ban them....

Assault weapon ban....

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.
--------
Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

Magazine capacity...no bearing on the deaths in mass shootings...

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?
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.

IF LARGER MAGAZINES GIVE NO ADVANTAGE WHY THE FUCK DO YOU NEED THEM.

If large mags give no advantage WHY THE FUCK DO YOU WANT TO BAN THEM

Here we go again. In our Aurora Theater shooting, he used a 100 round capacity mag. It jammed right around 50 rounds in. He switched to a shotgun and a handgun (semi auto). Believe it or not, this kept the body count down. And he was a terrible shot. He relied on the amount of ammo that the AR could put out to compensate for his lack of markmanship. And it did until it jammed. Almost all the dead and wounded were from the AR.

No, you don't know what you are talking about.

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......

The Navy Yard shooter, shooting adults.....murdered 13 with a shotgun and hand gun.....

You don't know what you are talking about...

You are fake news. Next?

 

[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

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.

Count the shots. The 223 is all over the place and that's with no wind. If that shooter was with my old bunch he would have been a laughing stock. The Shooter may be the best in the world but he is using the wrong caliber.

Do you mean cartridge?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

I don't believe the NRA would profit from too many people ending up dead. The ones that really pay the bills would notice a drastic fall off of sales. They aren't there to kill more people, they are there to promote selling more guns at the highest rate it can be done at. What we use those guns for isn't their problem.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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.

Count the shots. The 223 is all over the place and that's with no wind. If that shooter was with my old bunch he would have been a laughing stock. The Shooter may be the best in the world but he is using the wrong caliber.

Do you mean cartridge?

I should have said round or something along those lines. Let's face it, a 22.250 is far superior and can go out further and still have some energy left.

 

[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.

and is more likely to pass through thereby wasting its kinetic energy which is why people use hollow points

Stop with the fake news and just sit down.

 

[Rustic]

And Ar15 is not anything more than a sporting rifle...
I hunt antelope with an Ar15 in 6.8 SPC It is a particularly good hunting rifle for white tails, mule deer and antelope.

Then why do people like you keep claiming it is needed to defend against the government?

And why the hell do you need an assault weapon to hunt antelope? Are you such a bad shot that you can't use a bolt action .308?

Lol
.308 is overkill for an lope... Anyway

 

[jc456]

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

I don't believe the NRA would profit from too many people ending up dead. The ones that really pay the bills would notice a drastic fall off of sales. They aren't there to kill more people, they are there to promote selling more guns at the highest rate it can be done at. What we use those guns for isn't their problem.

Exactly, so why are they in the conversation all the time?

 

[Rustic]

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.

Count the shots. The 223 is all over the place and that's with no wind. If that shooter was with my old bunch he would have been a laughing stock. The Shooter may be the best in the world but he is using the wrong caliber.

Do you mean cartridge?

I should have said round or something along those lines. Let's face it, a 22.250 is far superior and can go out further and still have some energy left.

It definitely has more energy at Range, I like 22-250s.
But they are a bit of a barrel burner not quite as bad as of 220 Swift but still you don’t need all that speed at all.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Our solution...end gun free zones so mass shooters stop targeting schools and churches.

Our solution, lock up known, violent, repeat gun offenders for long prison sentences instead of allowing democrat party politicians and judges to let them out of prison.

Our solution is to focus on mental health issues, to help the dangerously mentally ill, not taking guns away from women who need them to stay safe.

That's it?

Who has proposed any legislation that would FUND mental health issues? Why has the legislation enacted ALLOWED people with mental health issues to buy guns?

WHo is going to fund turning all of our schools into armed fortresses?

Last year, there was a push to take the firearms from the Mentally Ill that were deemed to be violent. Enter the NRA once again. It was passed almost unamously by both parties in the State House. In the Senate, it never got out of the committee. The Senate was Republican Controlled. Not to worry, it's up at bat once more and the Dems control both houses AND the Governorship. It appears that the Reps want to keep screaming bloody murder that this is need but when the chips fall, the go with their sponsor, the NRA who sees this group as a wonderful business opportunity.

 

[Lesh]

So our Gun Hugger "experts" are
A. Lying...or
B. Wrong about their knowledge and experience
C. Talking about weird "one off" nonsense

650 yard groundhog shots? Really? No wonder you "spray and pray"

 

[Daryl Hunt]

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

I don't believe the NRA would profit from too many people ending up dead. The ones that really pay the bills would notice a drastic fall off of sales. They aren't there to kill more people, they are there to promote selling more guns at the highest rate it can be done at. What we use those guns for isn't their problem.

Exactly, so why are they in the conversation all the time?

Selling Guns is not Conservative. It's not anything other than profit.

 

[jc456]

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

I don't believe the NRA would profit from too many people ending up dead. The ones that really pay the bills would notice a drastic fall off of sales. They aren't there to kill more people, they are there to promote selling more guns at the highest rate it can be done at. What we use those guns for isn't their problem.

Exactly, so why are they in the conversation all the time?

Selling Guns is not Conservative. It's not anything other than profit.

Yep