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.
I'm all for an assault weapons ban. There is a reason why it's always used in mass shootings.
There will always be school shootings but at least the death toll will be minimal
Mournfully, you are probably correct re school shootings or attempts to do harm to one's peers. I do not understand why sensible regulation of weapons of war cannot be discussed.
In a suburban Pittsburgh H.S. in 2014, a 16-year-old sophomore, used a pair of eight-inch kitchen knives to attack fellow students. After wounding several people he pulled the fire alarm in an effort to gain access to more students. While and after being subdued by an assistant principal he continued to shout, " My work is not done. I have more people to kill". A total of 22 people, including the assailant, were injured during the rampage. Four students sustained life-threatening injuries, but all survived.
If this troubled teen had a weapon of war instead of the weapons he did utilize, I doubt the outcome that day at Franklin Regional H.S. would have been the same!
We need sensible gun regulation and not more weapons of war! The surviving victims of the latest school massacre know this, unfortunately. Once again, I applaud them for their courage and attempts to turn their rage into activism. They are asking the adults of our society to hear them! When is enough, enough? We aren't protecting them! Our legislators aren't protecting them!
Last edited by corpgypsy; 02-19-2018 at 11:58 AM..
Reason: clarity
So if 20% of the people wanted to stage an armed revolt against the government, their feelings should outweigh the remainder of the people who didn't want such a revolt?
Do a quick stud of the American Revolution. Tell us, exactly what percentage of the Colonists were revolutionaries?
cliches? How about this one (also known as a definite truth): When seconds count, help (police, sheriff, U.S. Marshals, etc.) are only minutes away. Actually, in some areas of the country, HOURS away!
If you wish to deny that, please furnish absolute proof.
Do a quick stud of the American Revolution. Tell us, exactly what percentage of the Colonists were revolutionaries?
cliches? How about this one (also known as a definite truth): When seconds count, help (police, sheriff, U.S. Marshals, etc.) are only minutes away. Actually, in some areas of the country, HOURS away!
If you wish to deny that, please furnish absolute proof.
I'm sorry. I have no reason to respond to your post since you did not respond to the question I asked you.
Although I will point out there was no Second Amendment before and during the Revolutionary War.
You're question is irrelevant because the difference in time is irrelevant.
All it means is a shooter in a gun free zone such as a school might take 2-4 seconds longer to kill the same number of people.
Cops take 15-20 minutes to get there.....
Are you going to tackle him and wrestle him to the ground in the 2-4 seconds it takes him to swap a mag?
Even if you're paying enough attention to realize he's out and swapping a mag.... and assuming you're able to get near him in that 2-4 seconds......what if he has another loaded gun too?
The whole line of reasoning about smaller mag sizes is just a farce.
You must be wondering why they all choose 30-100 round magazines as opposed to 5 round ones. Seems obvious to me.
Mournfully, you are probably correct re school shootings or attempts to do harm to one's peers. I do not understand why sensible regulation of weapons of war cannot be discussed.
These are not "weapons of war".
There is not a military on the planet that uses the AR15 as it's battle rifle.
Walking into an undefended, gun free zone and killing unarmed, defenseless people with little avenue of escape does not require a "weapon of war".
You're question is irrelevant because the difference in time is irrelevant.
All it means is a shooter in a gun free zone such as a school might take 2-4 seconds longer to kill the same number of people.
Cops take 15-20 minutes to get there.....
Are you going to tackle him and wrestle him to the ground in the 2-4 seconds it takes him to swap a mag?
Even if you're paying enough attention to realize he's out and swapping a mag.... and assuming you're able to get near him in that 2-4 seconds......what if he has another loaded gun too?
The whole line of reasoning about smaller mag sizes is just a farce.
Magazine size is of absolute importance. Outside of a handful of special forces guys most normal people take longer then 5 seconds to reload. And while they are reloading they are not looking downrange. One of the key components of post WW2 military doctrine was being able to put more bullets in the air, faster then your enemy. The more bullets you shoot the more likely you are to win the engagement. Its the reason why all the major militaries in the post war years transitioned from bolt action and semi-auto rifles to assault rifles with large mag capacity.
Also larger magazines means you have to carry less of them when you are on the battlefield. Its easier to carry 5 mags on you then 25 for example.
The untrained Las Vegas shooter for example fired almost 1100 rounds of ammo downrange over 10 minutes. With a bolt action rifle with limited mag capacity he would be lucky to squeeze off 10 rounds in a minute. So we have 100 rounds vs 1100 rounds. Which do think would do more damage?
Magazine size is of absolute importance. Outside of a handful of special forces guys most normal people take longer then 5 seconds to reload. And while they are reloading they are not looking downrange. One of the key components of post WW2 military doctrine was being able to put more bullets in the air, faster then your enemy. The more bullets you shoot the more likely you are to win the engagement. Its the reason why all the major militaries in the post war years transitioned from bolt action and semi-auto rifles to assault rifles with large mag capacity.
Also larger magazines means you have to carry less of them when you are on the battlefield. Its easier to carry 5 mags on you then 25 for example.
The untrained Las Vegas shooter for example fired almost 1100 rounds of ammo downrange over 10 minutes. With a bolt action rifle with limited mag capacity he would be lucky to squeeze off 10 rounds in a minute. So we have 100 rounds vs 1100 rounds. Which do think would do more damage?
Why do you post something that's obviously untrue?
Why do you not make the distinction between right to own a weapon vs. the right to own a AR-15. Is there any moderation on what types of weapons are allowed. I mean with this line of thinking, people will start saying they have a right to have a tank, and own a nuclear bomb.
No problem. I don't know of anybody who wants a tank. The fuel and maintenance is too expensive!
However, it is legal to buy and own one, if you really want one.
I don't know for sure if it is illegal to own nuclear material or not. It sure would be stupid, though.
No, I do not want an AR-15. I would be quite happy with a Ruger Mini-14 Ranch rifle, if I wanted a .223 caliber rifle. It is identical in every way to the AR, except for color and ugliness. Yep, it is semi-automatic, .223 caliber, and high capacity magazines are readily available!
Personally, I would rather have a .17 HMR. The .223,IMO, is good for about the same things as the .30 Carbine. Sort of fun to shoot, but not much else. Any .22 round, in many states, is not legal for hunting (except for feral hogs). It is, however, great for shooting gophers. So is the .17HMR.
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.
