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.
Lol.
Let me get this straight - I made a comment about school killings in US vs the rest of the world combined. I was told that the huge rate here is due to "gun free zones". Then when I implied that other countries obviously don't allow any sort of "carry" stuff in schools, I'm given some story about 1973 Delaware. Wow, that's so profoundly logical
It was when it was legal to bring a firearm on school property... amazing what happens when there's a perceived threat and folks rushing to get the tools of defense and are willing to stand their ground to protect life.
Now without calling in a threat... and have teachers/faculty trained and armed, with no knowledge made to the public of who is armed and who isnt... first time a school shooting takes place when there is an armed deterrence present. The lethality will be either greatly reduced or stopped before even getting lethal...
Takes waiting minutes for police to arrive to having the means of defense on site and able to react the moment it happens.
You tell me. Would you rather wait minutes for police to arrive? Or have someone to act on behalf of your defense right then and there that very second?
It is not. The paper explains why and wherefore. dActuslly a pretty interesting paper. And It will get more so as Lott et al tries to refute the findings.
It is not. The paper explains why and wherefore. dActuslly a pretty interesting paper. And It will get more so as Lott et al tries to refute the findings.
I'm unlikely to read the entire paper but if your conclusion is drawn from this image: https://imgur.com/a/u5uvf then you might want to look at it a little more diligently.
They do not claim to. What they do suggest is that the implementation of permissive gun laws in US states leads to higher violent crime rates.
They even evaluate the mechanisms that cause this. Download and read the actual paper. Pretty interesting. i would expect a refuting paper from Lott et al in the next few months which will be interesting also.
I would also suggest that the statistics from the western countries indicate very strongly that gun restriction do work well with respect to gun crime.
The federal assault weapons ban was allowed to expire because there wasn't any positive conclusion it did anything to lessen the murder rate.
In fact the murder rate started decreasing before it was passed and continued to decrease after it expired.
The vast majority of crime committed by people with guns is with hand guns. Rifles, including the AR-15 are rarely used in crime. I know you know this, but it is for the benefit of the gun grabbers.
Absolutely this and especially the bolded which was what I had addressed to lvmensch...
Had paddock has an M1 Garand with a full power rifle cartridge or hell even a bolt action rifle, more people would have been killed. For how many rounds he fired... his kill to shot fired ratio on a crowd of 22,000+ is (don't anyone take this the wrong way) pathetically low.
If 2,000 rounds were fired and 58 dead, that's a 0.029% count.
Had he used a fudd bolt action rifle in 300 win mag for example he would have had a higher kill ratio. When the Vegas thread was open and people referred to him as a "sniper", he was far from it.
Of course many will oppose this and claim it isn't true.
To those that disagree. Go to your local shooting range that has machine guns to rent. Go shoot one and see how well you can hit your target.
I will guarantee you won't get rounds on target in an effective manner. Do a few 3-5 round bursts, then run an entire magazine dry.
Unless you've been shooting for a while and participate in say 3 gun competitions where you're putting down double taps left and right, I very much doubt you'll be able to put a full magazine on target.
Then do it with a bump stock and see how much worse it gets as you have the physics of recoil and harmonics playing with the barrel along with the rifle sliding in and out combined with muzzle climb from rapid fire recoil...
Common .223/5.56 on the left, lvmensch 30-06 M1 garand cartridge he fired in the 50s on the right.
Things would have been FAR worse with a hunting rifle.
Far worse.
Well placed shots from a full power rifle cartridge would have yielded 2 kills per shot depending on angle. Say 2 people side by side in the crowd. 1 300 win mag or 30-06 through the artery in the neck or through the spinal cord instant death or within a minute, exit hit the person next to them height playing a role, exit the 1st victim and hit the 2nd either in the head or through the shoulder or ribs and hit lung heart and lung... they'd be dead too. The shot to kill count being 2 possibly 3 to 1, yeah. Far worse had he used say an M1 Garand.
When the FBI profiler gave their 2 cents and claimed that people died from bullets that had cut through others... pure nonsense. Not a single 5.56 or .223 loading has the mass nor velocity at that range to smack through multiple bodies. Not a 1. It lacks the energy to punch through 2-3.
As far as the wounds reported, how many of them were gun shot wounds, and how many were Trampling? Falling?
The full power 30-06 absolutely. 300 win mag absolutely would have been worse with aimed shots.
Vegas was the first time an AR had been used in a long range engagement upon innocent people.
If 2k rounds were fired resulting in 58 killed... that really shows how poor of a choice in weaponry if his motive was to slaughter as many as possible.
If that doesn't speak for its inability and speak for its lack in the perceived "powerful" cartridge it fires... I don't know what is...
Actually I would be skeptical that an M1 would have caused more casualties. Paddock is firing into a dark hole from 400 yards. He purported fired 1100 rounds at the Festival and hit 422 people out of over 800 hurt. Even with good optics I doubt you could see much with an M1. So you would end up firing into the dark hole at a slower rate. Won't take long before everyone takes cover or hits the ground giving even less to shot at.
Actually I would be skeptical that an M1 would have caused more casualties. Paddock is firing into a dark hole from 400 yards. He purported fired 1100 rounds at the Festival and hit 422 people out of over 800 hurt. Even with good optics I doubt you could see much with an M1. So you would end up firing into the dark hole at a slower rate. Won't take long before everyone takes cover or hits the ground giving even less to shot at.
Dark hole illuminated by stage lights. The first few seconds of the song you could hear the semi auto shots. It was once the singer booked it and the stage lights came on he made it rain.
Giving less to shoot at? He had a clear view of the crowd below. You don't reduce the chances of getting hit when someone had elevation...
Cover? There was no cover at the event until the people exited and went towards that parking lot where the wall blocked his field of view.
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.
