Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Several posters have proudly stated that they can shoot a lot of rounds and do a lot of harm with rudimentary guns. This is their defense for the guns that can shoot hundreds of rounds very quickly.
It seems that some gun enthusiasts are obsessed with how powerful these guns are. It is no surprise that many former massacre shooters had selfies pretending to be Rambo. The Virginia Tech shooter comes to mind.
This obsession about gun power is lethal in folks with mental issues. I am astounded at how many posters boast about how fast they can shoot. It seems they get pleasure out of that. Couple that with a bit of mental illness and we have massacres.
No you've completely missed the point. The parents are suing Remington for making and selling the AR-15. What is their basis for the suit? That the AR-15 is too dangerous of a gun for any private citizen to be allowed to own.
All that I myself and others are demonstrating is that Adam Lanza could have walked in with a shotgun or a hunting rifle or a revolver or a handgun and been just as lethal -- possibly even more lethal. This undermines the claim by the parents who are trying to single out the AR-15 as "an unacceptably lethal weapon." The fact that they're completely ignoring: Any modern gun can fire hundreds of rounds in just a few minutes. They are trying to draw a line between "safe guns" and "unsafe guns" when there really is no such thing as a "safe gun." I also think it has more to do with cosmetics than anything else. As I already pointed out, the "safer looking" 30-06 shoots a considerably bigger bullet (7.76mm) than the AR-15 (5.56mm). If I had to pick, I'd rather get shot by the AR-15 as I'd have a better chance of surviving.
Now since any gun can be used to fire hundreds of rounds in minutes and many weapons shoot bigger bullets, what is the justification for singling out the AR-15?
What did the gun manufacturer do that was wrong? They complied with laws constrained to civilian weapons, the gun was retailed and purchased legally. The plaintiffs really don't have a case, they may not like the gun, they may not like the shape and form of the gun, the gun wasn't sold as an offensive weapon, the manufacturer has no control over the intended use. I truly sympathize with the people who lost their children, there is nothing worse than that, but the fact of the matter is Adam Lanza was a sick individual who should not have had access to deadly weapons. He didn't steal a gun from a store, he didn't get one from a friend, he got it from home, his mother didn't recognize the depravity of his illness and paid the ultimate price for her error in judgement, along with the kids and teachers. Sue the gun manufacturer? Sue the gun retailer? Sue the town for not protecting our kids better? Sue the state for not mandating a system of protection? Sue the company that made the bullets, sue the doctor who delivered Adam Lanza, sue, sue, sue. It's not going to bring their kids back, and all the money they get won't change gun control policy. Only their tireless effort to advocate an answer that protects kids from violent incidents and crimes will be the legacy to remember their kids by.
What did the gun manufacturer do that was wrong? They complied with laws constrained to civilian weapons, the gun was retailed and purchased legally. The plaintiffs really don't have a case, they may not like the gun, they may not like the shape and form of the gun, the gun wasn't sold as an offensive weapon, the manufacturer has no control over the intended use. I truly sympathize with the people who lost their children, there is nothing worse than that, but the fact of the matter is Adam Lanza was a sick individual who should not have had access to deadly weapons. He didn't steal a gun from a store, he didn't get one from a friend, he got it from home, his mother didn't recognize the depravity of his illness and paid the ultimate price for her error in judgement, along with the kids and teachers. Sue the gun manufacturer? Sue the gun retailer? Sue the town for not protecting our kids better? Sue the state for not mandating a system of protection? Sue the company that made the bullets, sue the doctor who delivered Adam Lanza, sue, sue, sue. It's not going to bring their kids back, and all the money they get won't change gun control policy. Only their tireless effort to advocate an answer that protects kids from violent incidents and crimes will be the legacy to remember their kids by.
Anything can kill people and that includes autos and knifes. However, some guns have an incredibly high ability to kill people in a very short time. Guns that are designed to kill as many as possible should be banned. They should only be used by the military. I am not advocating prohibition of guns, but there are certain guns the public should not have.
Anything can kill people and that includes autos and knifes. However, some guns have an incredibly high ability to kill people in a very short time. Guns that are designed to kill as many as possible should be banned. They should only be used by the military. I am not advocating prohibition of guns, but there are certain guns the public should not have.
I hear ya, but where do we draw the line? If he had gone in there with a semi automatic shotgun, he might have killed or maimed many more than he did. I'm a little torn about the Bushmaster/AR-15, it's really a sport gun, not the best for hunting or precision shooting, so not as much of a purposeful gun as a threatening looking weapon. But if it were not available, what does the next Lanza choose as his weapon of choice?
I hear ya, but where do we draw the line? If he had gone in there with a semi automatic shotgun, he might have killed or maimed many more than he did. I'm a little torn about the Bushmaster/AR-15, it's really a sport gun, not the best for hunting or precision shooting, so not as much of a purposeful gun as a threatening looking weapon. But if it were not available, what does the next Lanza choose as his weapon of choice?
Why would you think it's not suitable for hunting? Depending on the caliber and upper it is usually the exact weapon for the job other than maybe larger, thin skinned game at really long ranges. For that you can step up to the AR-10 style semi-autos.
For Deer or hogs the AR-15 is the absolute perfect gun. It takes any optic and with the right caliber, say .264 lbc or 6.8 spc it's hard to beat.
Have you seen the MOAs some of the Grendel guys are getting out at 1000 yards in shoots?
Anything can kill people and that includes autos and knifes. However, some guns have an incredibly high ability to kill people in a very short time. Guns that are designed to kill as many as possible should be banned. They should only be used by the military. I am not advocating prohibition of guns, but there are certain guns the public should not have.
One of the most lethal close range weapons is a pump shotgun. With a bag of ammo you can single feed it and literally shoot until you are out of ammo which would be as much as you can carry.
In your imaginary dream world everyone is limited to single shot rifles. In reality some guy with a good optic could literally kill scores with a single shot break action rifle, sniper style from hundreds of yards away before even being detected.
Consider the fact that they have lost a child, the government is doing absolutely nothing in the way of passing legislation that they think will prevent another tragedy. What else is left?
What do you mean "What else is left"?
The gun maker is in no way responsible for the decisions of a human being anymore than fork and spoon manufacturers are responsible for obesity.
I can appreciate the grief of the family but that doesn't give it a license to file a nonsense lawsuit.
Anything can kill people and that includes autos and knifes. However, some guns have an incredibly high ability to kill people in a very short time. Guns that are designed to kill as many as possible should be banned. They should only be used by the military. I am not advocating prohibition of guns, but there are certain guns the public should not have.
The AR-15 in question was not fully automatic. Fully automatic versions of that and other rifles cannot legally be sold in all or most of the 50 states to your average citizen. (Those buying and selling full-autos pretty much have to sign their life away to the ATF for the privilege and are under extreme scrutiny from that point on.)
The AR-15 used at Sandy Hook is no different than an ordinary semi-automatic pistol, revolver, rifle or shotgun: One trigger pull = one shot. Hold the trigger in and nothing much happens. You have to let go of the trigger and then pull it again to shoot again. How is a semi-automatic AR-15 any better "designed to kill as many people as possible" than any other gun?
Bigger picture: Where is the dividing line between guns that are okay and guns that should be banned? Why should the AR-15 be banned but not a semi-auto 30-06 rifle?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
