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.
Active shooters are twice as deadly when a semiautomatic weapon is used
News flash: Active shooters are 10x as deadly when they know for certain there are no armed people in the area they are going to shoot up, who have any chance of defending themselves.
These shootings most often take place in so-called "gun free zones" where people aren't allowed to have a gun. Which just means that only law-abiding people are disarmed, while the armed nutcase just waltzes right in and starts firing. The number of assaults, murders etc. that happen at gun shows, police stations, rifle ranges etc. can be counted on the fingers of one hand (and are stopped very quickly), while murders and mass shootings in "gun free zones" fill the newspapers almost constantly, and tend to go on and on.
It makes sense that shootings mostly happen in "gun free zones" because most public spaces are "gun free zones". Also the amount of police stations and gun ranges in a given city is very small and thus in terms of probability, not a likely a place for a spree shooting to occur. That said,
Mass shootings at police stations and gun ranges have occurred before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer
Even if everyone were permitted to have a gun (i.e. if the 2nd amendment were actually obeyed), most people still wouldn't bother. But a few would, and criminals wouldn't know who in the crowd he was about to attack, might have a gun. He would only know it was likely that a few did. It's enough to make a criminal reconsider his plans, and maybe take up a new occupation instead. Such knowledge wouldn't stop them all, but would stop quite a few, resulting in markedly fewer dead bodies... and all without a shot being fired.
Why the leftists gun-rights-haters refuse to take advantage of an effective deterrent, remains a mystery.
Having many people with a concealed firearm in a public place is a really really really dumb idea. If there is a shooting at say a movie theater or school. Lets say in this incident, there are 20 people present with concealed handguns. Those 20 people don't know each other and may not have a clear idea of who exactly is the real shooter. Now we have a situation where 20 random people are walking around with guns, making the possibility of them shooting each other on accident a real problem. If you are in a theater and you hear gun shots, so your pull your gun out and head over to where you think the problem is, as your turn a corner you see a man standing there holding a gun. You aren't gonna ask them if they are the shooter, you are gonna cut them down.
You then have another problem, which is when the police show up. How will they be able to tell who is and is not the real shooter? This problem was highlighted during Dallas Police Massacre, there were several people marching in the protests that had AR-15's. Not one of them did anything to help stop the killer. Matter of fact, because the police didn't know who was doing the shooting. They were forced to arrest and hold all the protesters who had guns. So those individuals didn't contribute to stopping the massacre and on top of it made matters worse by eating up police personal who could have been otherwise hunting for the real shooter.
The only time where a civilian gun owner is useful stopping a mass shooting is when they are the only person in the vicinity with a gun. As as the case in the Texas Church Shooting. But this can't be managed or expected.
It shows that in the United States, shootings that involved a semiautomatic rifle resulted in nearly twice as many deaths compared with shootings carried out with only regular handguns, shotguns or rifles. I don't see mention of semiautomatic handguns in the study.
Thoughts? Should semi-automatic firearms be regulated as tightly as fully automatic firearms?
Just another reason to grab all the guns......what we need is more CCW people to double tap these clowns and put them down........
This is soooo NOT rooted in history. In the vast majority of the time in history, when a government is overthrown, including USA, it was through an armed rebellion.
Yes, there might be a few peaceful power transfers, but they were abnormalities than the norm.
How do you plan to fight Hitler or literally Hitler, aka Trump? By marching to the street wearing puss hats? The real Hitler would mow you down with machine guns - actually Hitler might not do that, but Stalin, Mao, and Kim would certainly do that.
No, when a government is overthrown its usually via a military backed coup or an outside power. Not by armed rebellion via civilians. Violent rebellions have a long history of not working, the only exceptions is when an outside power steps in to help. Which is what happened with us. Had the French not got involved the American colonialist would have easily lost and our forefathers would have all been hung. The problem is there is no guarantee that an outside power would get involved in any future American revolutions. Merely having a few AR-15's in the hands of civilians will not stop a tyrannical government.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeexplorer
LOL! Whom could those armed gangs terrorize when most civilians are armed?
Kids, pregnant women, the sick, the elderly, the disabled and wounded.
I would think a pump action shotgun would be much more lethal when shooting fish in a barrel. (aka gun free kill zones) Each pull of the trigger shooting 9+ .32 caliber balls at lethal speed. An additional benefit is the ability to reload on the fly should be considered as well.
Sure you can try to ban semi-automatic weapons but you will never be able to prevent mass shootings. Mental health issues are not resolved by any kind of ban.
It makes sense that shootings mostly happen in "gun free zones" because most public spaces are "gun free zones".
Not even close to being true... to no one's surprise. In most outdoor areas in many states, you can carry a gun if you want. Rifles in some places, handguns in others, various permits sometimes required (which itself if illegal, abut that's a subject for another thread).
Some places like schools, government buildings, stores and buildings where the owner has declared them "gun free", etc. are the "gun free" zones I referred to - and they are the minority of all spaces.
Mass shootings at police stations and gun ranges have occurred before.
Which is why I called them rare, not nonexistent. Nice try at "refuting" a statement no one made.
Quote:
Having many people with a concealed firearm in a public place is a really really really dumb idea.
Which is why I didn't suggest that either. You're 0-for-2 in refuting anything, but 2-for-2 in "misunderstanding" what was said.
Still nobody has refuted, or even tried to refute the main point:
If everyone is permitted to carry, most still won't bother, but the number of mass shootings will go way down since the criminal will know that a few people in the crowd he wants to attack are likely to have a gun. And he won't know who they are, and knows he can't stop them from attacking him. And so the number of mass shootings will decrease, as will the number of dead people, all without a shot being fired.
It's a mystery why the gun-rights-haters keep refusing to try this method of violence prevention (also called "obeying the 2nd amendment"), especially since it can be expected to produce much better results than the "gun controlling" methods they keep trying over and over.
Perhaps they don't really want a solution at all, despite their protestations?
It shows that in the United States, shootings that involved a semiautomatic rifle resulted in nearly twice as many deaths compared with shootings carried out with only regular handguns, shotguns or rifles. I don't see mention of semiautomatic handguns in the study.
Thoughts? Should semi-automatic firearms be regulated as tightly as fully automatic firearms?
Ah one of the steps in the theoretical calculation, no guns, no gun deaths!
Define deadly, as used in the title.
A 308 is as deadly in a single shot rifle as in a semi auto Remington or AR.
The reason semi auto handguns was not mentioned was because it would cause too much resistance to the effort to ban semi auto long guns. Semi auto pistols will have to wait their turn.
Well maybe semi auto shotguns will horn in line before semi auto pistols.
You do know there are semi auto 2 shot plus one in the chamber shotguns?
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.
