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.
if you look at the numbers, far more shootings used a handgun. why not ban handguns too?
That's what they want, they found out when Clinton was president when they tell the truth the voters kick them out, so now they just lie about their true objective.
My pump is just as fast as a semi but don't let actual day to day use get in the way of a "feel good" rant. They'll be after those next. Not the nut jobs doing the damage.
You are correct there are many different variables that can determine the lethality of any specific firearm. My point of highlighting the mortality rate concerning people shot with different guns was to establish that not all guns are equally lethal.
Pistols have another factor that increases its lethality vs other platforms. Commonality. Semi-Auto pistols are one of the more common guns found in America. The more common a weapon is the more likely it is going to be used for criminal purposes. The inverse is also true. Automatic weapons are extremely uncommon and thus rarely ever used in crime.
Speaking of volume of fire. I looked at the 2017 Las Vegas massacre that killed 58 people and injured another 422 (injuries only from gunshots). If we combine the number killed with the number injured we arrive with a total 480 people shot in a 10 minute span. The 58 killed out of 422 comes out to 12% mortality for all those struck by bullets. A rather low figure. The lethality comes through when you assess the sheer volume of people shot. This is where the true lethality of semi-auto rifles comes through. While a larger caliber bolt action rifle would be far deadlier if struck, there would be no way such a large volume of people could have been hit with a bolt action rifle. Thus bullet volume is the most important metric when assessing the lethality of a firearm in the context of a spree shooting.
Its interesting to note that during WW2 all of the major players in the war came to understand this very notion. More bullet volume = more death. Hence the massive shift during the war and after the war to smaller caliber, larger firer rate and mag sized weapons.
Whats frighting is if we access the growing number of AR-15's being owned we essentially have the worst of both worlds. A weapon capable of immense carnage along with a far greater commonality. It should be of little surprise then that the recent string of deadly shootings have been far deadlier then those in the past.
You are correct, a hit from a high powered rifle like .308Win for example does extrodinary amounts of tissue damage and if struck has a high mortality rate. Yet people are not really concerned with bolt action rifles due to the fact that they are hardly ever used for crime. They are not practical in short range situations (where most shootings occur), are hard to conceal, and are not able to produce a high volume of firepower. Not to mention they are not nearly as common amongst the general firearm owning public as other weapons.
Pumps, wheel guns and levers are which is where the freak show will want to move to next because " GUNS BAD" and the fire rate is almost the same. Not the freak show people doing the shooting that shouldn't even be out in public. It's a freaking hammer until it is loaded. Is it THAT hard to figure out. A plane is only a plane until you ram it into a building.
Last edited by 1AngryTaxPayer; 09-12-2018 at 09:11 PM..
The govt was not out of control tyrannical at the time of the founding fathers either...
Nor could the founding fathers foresee a time when govt would disguise tyranny under protecting health/safety, in order to fool the people.
Point is, the Govt NEEDS to fear the people and their capability to some degree, as to prevent all out tyranny.
Seriously ask yourself, what would the chances be today if the people needed to remove this govt from power?...would they last 5 minutes against the military or police? LOL
The same military that can't beat Vietnamese, Iraqis, afghans, Syrians ... Same police that can't stop violence in thousands of cities in the US? They're not allowed to because it's not nice to our precious criminals/terrorists. A certain percentage might be willing to follow any order but most won't when it means carpet bombing citizens or doing a raid on some guys house who has enough common sense to know what apartment they're in.
Now you are changing your EXTRAORDINARY story...why?
Right here:
Quote:
"Next, the goal would be to shoot as many of the students as possible, and possibly, focus on the ones he thinks might be mostly likely to be carrying a gun (likely none of them, but you never know). This can happen all so fast he can shoot a large number of people before anybody has any time to react."
I don't know what you're smoking, but there's nothing in that statement that implies I said people would be sitting around waiting to be shot. The shooter is going around the classroom picking off people, who are trying to hide under tables, chairs, trying to run away, and whatnot. When I said "react" I was referring to potentially pulling out their gun and returning fire. My next sentence was:
Quote:
If there are any students who happen to be carrying, they will likely be ducking beneath a desk scared out of their wits before they can gather up enough guts to pull out their gun and start shooting back ... if they haven't been shot already.
Quote:
No, not really, thousands of people are saved yearly because they carry and or save themselves because they have a gun. Your statement is the usual leftist stupid statement.
Here you go folks, it's rambo, the wild west, macho, big tired truck....yet we are talking about in class room.....
But since, you're going there, here are THOUSANDS of people who saved their lives or other, because they were scared out of their wits...
You really should do some research before you post.....really....
This was very predictable. What your gun magazine doesn't tell you is how many people are not shot because they don't have a weapon on them.
I'm sure you just laughed.
Laugh away, I know it happens from personal experience.
In 1986 I was working at this convenience store in Charlotte, NC here (back then it was a Fast Fare). One day there were two guys who were hanging out around the store on and off for much of my shift (which was a late afternoon-to-closing shift). They were mostly playing on the video game machines and I didn't think much of them. At one point at night they were the only two in the store besides myself. I went to the back room to get some cleaning materials, and when I came back, I went back to the cashier's area and saw that somebody had picked the safe (they did it in only about a minute). I turned around and the two of them were standing there, with a gun pointed at me. It is clear that, at that point, the absolute stupidest thing I could have done would have been to try to grab a gun from somewhere, if I had had one, to try to defend myself. They told me to open the cash register and give them the money, which I did. One of them then escorted me to the back cleaning room, locked the door (which was pretty silly, I could open it from inside even if it was locked) and left. I waited maybe 30 seconds or so to let them get some distance from me and the store, and then I called 911.
You see, the problem with the macho-Rambo gun crowd is they think the only way to fight fire is with more fire. They read the stories in their gun magazines and think that the answer to fighting gun crime is to pull out their own gun and fight back. It sounds really noble and all that, but what never seems to occur to them is that often times, not resisting at all will lead to less violence. So for every story you can show me where somebody fends off some burglar with a gun, you can be sure there is at least one other instance where somebody didn't get shot because they didn't have a gun. Sometimes, fighting fire with water actually works better.
In fact, my point about not fighting back with another gun in the Fast Fare in 1986 seems to have foreshadowed what happened in eastern Europe 3 years later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
That argument cuts both ways. If that's the case then you could also say a completely unarmed populace could defeat a tyrannical government. In fact, that's precisely what happened in 1989.
Medieval Europe had 10 times our homicide rate
Guns invented 400 years later
Let that soak in for a minute
Guns are the issue ?
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.
