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.
His primary weapon was the Ford F-150 of rifles - the Remington 700 series. One of the most popular bolt action rifles in American history, and he just happened to have some marksman training. And nobody is or was suggesting a ban on bolt action rifles, which on a "kills per rounds fired" basis, are far more deadly than semiauto's being operated in spray and pray mode.
And he fired from that tower, out in the open, for 96 minutes. Range matters.
Had the Vegas guy been less of a total tactical moron, chosen better weapons, been a better shot and better prepared, he could have fired from that hotel room for at least an hour before anyone had any idea were he was, much less stop him. And had he been even marginally attempting to be accurate, his kill ratio and total count would have been way higher. Put a dude like Whitman in that Vegas shoot, and we are talking hundreds dead, like middle/high hundreds.
As I commented before, that bump stock the Vegas shooter used likely saved lives. If he simply scoped and sniped (along with some practice before hand), the number killed would have been greater.
His primary weapon was the Ford F-150 of rifles - the Remington 700 series. One of the most popular bolt action rifles in American history, and he just happened to have some marksman training. And nobody is or was suggesting a ban on bolt action rifles, which on a "kills per rounds fired" basis, are far more deadly than semiauto's being operated in spray and pray mode.
And he fired from that tower, out in the open, for 96 minutes. Range matters.
Had the Vegas guy been less of a total tactical moron, chosen better weapons, been a better shot and better prepared, he could have fired from that hotel room for at least an hour before anyone had any idea were he was, much less stop him. And had he been even marginally attempting to be accurate, his kill ratio and total count would have been way higher. Put a dude like Whitman in that Vegas shoot, and we are talking hundreds dead, like middle/high hundreds.
Glad to see I'm not the only one who has heard of Charles Whitman. I left his name out on purpose. Small blessing though it is we can be somewhat thankful that these mass shooters are NOT shooters. (Marksmen) Whitman hold the dubious distinction of being the deadliest mass shooter in our history in terms of fired rounds equaling casualties. Hands down. And that was in 1966. I found it interesting when I looked up the history of mass shootings in the US that other high casualty incidents listed were done by the NG and LE. Kent State is listed as a "mass shooting." And there were a BUNCH of others involving LE.
And we are supposed to trust them as our first last and only line of defense? As it has been said, I also believe that if the cops can have certain weapons we the citizens should ot be denied them. If a patrol officer needs an AR we sure do. They just patrol 8 hours a day. We LIVE out here.
I don't need one. I use a semi auto modern sporting rifle to hunt sounders of hogs with.
Glad you dont need one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
why don't we start with you defining what an assault weapon is???
the fascist liberals can not define what "military d
Dont care. You don't need the ability to slaughter 50+ human beings in a minute.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lionking
Assault is a action not a item. However the AR-15 rifle is the most popular rifle among target shooters and competition shooters being it is a very accurate rifle accuracy is something maniacs don't really care about seeing most of their murder is at close range and they are not being shot back at, also hunters such as hog hunters use it very often.
Now that I have answered a question of yours answer one of mine.The maniac in Texas killed as many with a pump shotgun and revolver as maniacs have on average with AR-15. So how is banning a Ar-15 going to limit maniacs from carrying out murder? Quick answer is, it won't.
Your response?
Then restrictions need to be stricter. See my response above.
Which is why I posted what I did, some posters believe that having a home arsenal is their 2nd amendment right. Others perceive that NZ proposed action is a complete hindrance on their gun rights.
If they intend on banning all semi auto firearms, then it is absolutely a hindrance on their gun rights.
Dont care. You don't need the ability to slaughter 50+ human beings in a minute.
Then restrictions need to be stricter. See my response above.
My gun is still a scary AR. It's just not an assault rifle, an assault weapon or a machine gun. I have a scary AK-47 too.
That used to be the gun everyone was so afraid of, how come they aren't afraid of an AK-47 anymore but are of an AR-15? The AK fires a much larger bullet.
Far more sense than the pro-life GOP that refused to even pass or consider background checks after 20 six and seven year old babies were slaughtered.
And to the conspiracy theorists, spare us your responses, as no one in touch with reality gives you and your crisis actor nonsense a thought.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert_J
We already have background checks. I filled out a form 4473 form on my last purchase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer
Shall I list all the stores I bought a gun where I HAD to pass a bgc?
Even though a felon can easily bypass a bgc.
I suppose I should have utilized the phrase Universal Background Check, or whatever the proposals are that would close those pesky loopholes, in making my point ( to the poster who mocked the NZ law as making no sense) after what happened here a whopping 7 years ago.
I remain convinced that the government of New Zealand's response to a horrific mass killing in their country makes far more sense than any response our government has been able to enact.
But as always, winning an argument or debate based on "gotcha" technicalities such as using an incorrect type of regulation or the wrong name for types of weapons, that create this instant mass carnage, are what is more important to so many who oppose sensible regulation and compromise. Not listening or hearing or using sensible debate, only talking points. These hollow arguments and accusations against fellow citizens that are all over this thread are utilized to avoid making progress that makes sense for the well being of everyone in a nation...including sportsmen and people needing or desiring gun self protection.
New Zealand's Prime Minister Ardern and her government's banning military-style semiautomatic weapons and assault rifles is admirable and lets them join with so many other first rate nations that strive to make their country safer.
Last edited by corpgypsy; 03-21-2019 at 01:27 PM..
I suppose I should have utilized the phrase Universal Background Check, or whatever the proposals are that would close those pesky loopholes, in making my point after what happened here a whopping 7 years ago.
I remain convinced that the government of New Zealand's response to a horrific mass killing in their country makes far more sense than any response our government has been able to enact.
But as always winning an argument or debate based on technicalities such as using an incorrect type of regulation or the wrong name for types of weapons that create this instant mass carnage are what is more important. Not sensible debate, only talking points. These hollow arguments and accusations against fellow citizens that are all over this thread are utilized to avoid making progress that makes sense for the well being of everyone in a nation.. including sportsmen and people needing or desiring gun protection.
New Zealand's Prime Minister Ardern and her government's banning military-style semiautomatic weapons and assault rifles is admirable and lets them join with so many other first rate nations that strive to make their country safer.
That little speech from her doesn't magically erase the million semi auto long guns in NZ. You do realize that don't you? AR and AKs are now banned in NY and CA but, not only can you still own them, you can still buy them. So yes, technicalities are apparently pretty important.
As I stated before. The parts for one aren't considered a firearm and someone can have them shipped to their door. Which means, if somebody wants to commit a mass shooting they will.
Let's recap. Their new law will only hinder the law abiding. Criminals? Not so much. Those of us that live in CA or NY already know that.
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.
