The U.S.A. Mass Shootings Thread

[Scobblelotcher]

MKnight702 said:

The constant hate for the AR-15 in the anti gun camp doesn't make an awful lot of sense.



The gun on the top is the Ruger Mini14, the gun on the bottom is an AR-15. The anti's have absolutely no objection to the top rifle but have a burning hatred for the bottom rifle.

The thing is, they are both pretty much identical. They both shoot the same ammunition (5.56/.223), they both are semi automatic with the same rate of fire, they both take box magazines capable of holding the same number of rounds. Unfortunately, one looks like grandads hunting rifle and one looks "scary", but that's about the only difference.

The hate for the AR-15 is understandable when viewed in context, it has been involved in many high profile mass murders and is seen as an enabler of these murders.

Still, I can’t believe the judges decision, there’s no hope eh?

[NMNeil]

633Squadron said:

It is not all bad news...

West Virginia offering guns as prizes in COVID vaccine lottery
https://nypost.com/2021/06/01/west-virginia-offeri...

Absolute madness!!!!!
Giving away pickup trucks, when so many people are killed by them every year.

[mike9009]

NMNeil said:

633Squadron said:

It is not all bad news...

West Virginia offering guns as prizes in COVID vaccine lottery
https://nypost.com/2021/06/01/west-virginia-offeri...

Absolute madness!!!!!
Giving away pickup trucks, when so many people are killed by them every year.

Yep, Ford F150s are purposely designed to kill people........

[mike9009]

NMNeil said:

633Squadron said:

It is not all bad news...

West Virginia offering guns as prizes in COVID vaccine lottery
https://nypost.com/2021/06/01/west-virginia-offeri...

Absolute madness!!!!!
Giving away pickup trucks, when so many people are killed by them every year.

Yep, Ford F150s are purposely designed to kill people........

[AJL308]

Byker28i said:

A US District Judge appointed by George W. Bush overturned California’s three decade old ban on assault weapons tonight. His opinion relies heavily on Justice Scalia’s decision in Heller, even though that opinion said you could ban guns like the AR-15.

Judge Roger T. Benitez, who has favored pro-gun groups in past rulings, described the AR-15 rifle, used in many of the nation's deadliest mass shootings, as an ideal weapon.

"Like the Swiss Army Knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment," he wrote in Friday's decision.

"Yet, the State of California makes it a crime to have an AR15 type rifle," Benitez continued. "Therefore, this Court declares the California statutes to be unconstitutional."
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/judge-rules-c...




from:
https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/firearmspoli...


The claim is that Heller overturned a settled understanding of the Second Amendment that was over a century old.



Scalia's decision in Heller (2008), anchoring "common use" to the time when the 2nd Amendment was ratified, not modern purchase patterns. He expressly says rifles like the M-16 are not protected despite being most useful in modern military service.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.h...

Back in 2018 Kavanaugh (yes him) Kavanaugh argued that AR-15s and the like cannot be regulated under the constitution because they are widely-owned.


The office of Attorney General Rob Bonta said it would appeal.

"Today’s decision is fundamentally flawed, and we will be appealing it," Bonta said in a statement Friday night. "There is no sound basis in law, fact, or common sense for equating assault rifles with swiss army knives."

The Firearms Policy Coalition, which backed the suit, celebrated the decision. "We look forward to continuing this challenge at the Ninth Circuit and, should it be necessary, the Supreme Court," the group's president, Brandon Combs, said in a statement.

If that is the basis of their appeal then they are deluded. An obiter comment by the judge, offered as an opinion and not directly related to his legal reasoning is going to get them laughed out of court. Hardly surprising they lost.

[captain_cynic]

NMNeil said:

633Squadron said:

It is not all bad news...

West Virginia offering guns as prizes in COVID vaccine lottery
https://nypost.com/2021/06/01/west-virginia-offeri...

Absolute madness!!!!!
Giving away pickup trucks, when so many people are killed by them every year.

Using this argument is really,really dumb.

All you're saying is that not only are Americans not fit to have guns, they're also not fit to drive. The US has a motor vehicle fatality rate far in excess of most, if not all other highly developed countries.

Median motor vehicle fatality rate for western Europe and Aus/NZ is 4 to 6 per 100,000 population, the US is 12 per 100,000 pop putting it up with the likes of Chile, Egypt and Turkey. The UK is low at around 3 per 100,000 pop.

[HM-2]

MKnight702 said:

Unfortunately, one looks like grandads hunting rifle and one looks "scary", but that's about the only difference.

To a certain extent I agree, but there are actually some quite fundamental differences. The Mini-14 in the spec pictured above is a much larger rifle on reality; a good two inches longer than.an AR-15 even with the stock fully extended as shown in that picture. All things being equal an AR-15 is easier to conceal and transport, though that's fundamentally a small difference.

There's also the question of modularity. This is an interesting and important factor when considering people who should be forbidden from opening weapons acquiring them. Because the only component which is "controlled" is the lower receiver, onto which multiple freely available uppers, barrels, stocks, dights and magazines can be fitted, and because 80% lowers and completion kits are effectively unregulated, AR-15s are relatively unique in that purchase and assembly of all components required for a fully functioning firearm can technically be accomplished without the need to go through background checks using little more than access to a pillar drill, the proper jigs and hand tools.

The fact of the matter is that AR-15 style rifles are significantly overrepresented in mass shootings compared not only to other types of firearm, but also to other semi-automatic centrefire rifles derived from assault rifles. Despite there being literally hundreds of thousands to millions of Kalashnikov pattern rifles in the US their use in the commission of mass shootings is dramatically lower even taking into account how much less common they are.

There's a certain aurora around the AR-15 within the US, perhaps because its the spitting image of the US service weapons.

[aeropilot]

captain_cynic said:

All you're saying is that not only are Americans not fit to have guns, they're also not fit to drive.

Very true, most of them aren't fit to drive either.

[Cliftonite]

MKnight702 said:

The constant hate for the AR-15 in the anti gun camp doesn't make an awful lot of sense.



The gun on the top is the Ruger Mini14, the gun on the bottom is an AR-15. The anti's have absolutely no objection to the top rifle but have a burning hatred for the bottom rifle.

The thing is, they are both pretty much identical. They both shoot the same ammunition (5.56/.223), they both are semi automatic with the same rate of fire, they both take box magazines capable of holding the same number of rounds. Unfortunately, one looks like grandads hunting rifle and one looks "scary", but that's about the only difference.

The "scary" one is more likely to be attractive to the mass-shooting nutters, though, just because it does appear more "macho" ?

[MKnight702]

HM-2 said:

To a certain extent I agree, but there are actually some quite fundamental differences. The Mini-14 in the spec pictured above is a much larger rifle on reality; a good two inches longer than.an AR-15 even with the stock fully extended as shown in that picture. All things being equal an AR-15 is easier to conceal and transport, though that's fundamentally a small difference.

There's also the question of modularity. This is an interesting and important factor when considering people who should be forbidden from opening weapons acquiring them. Because the only component which is "controlled" is the lower receiver, onto which multiple freely available uppers, barrels, stocks, dights and magazines can be fitted, and because 80% lowers and completion kits are effectively unregulated, AR-15s are relatively unique in that purchase and assembly of all components required for a fully functioning firearm can technically be accomplished without the need to go through background checks using little more than access to a pillar drill, the proper jigs and hand tools.

The fact of the matter is that AR-15 style rifles are significantly overrepresented in mass shootings compared not only to other types of firearm, but also to other semi-automatic centrefire rifles derived from assault rifles. Despite there being literally hundreds of thousands to millions of Kalashnikov pattern rifles in the US their use in the commission of mass shootings is dramatically lower even taking into account how much less common they are.

There's a certain aurora around the AR-15 within the US, perhaps because its the spitting image of the US service weapons.

The above AR-15 is a relatively short variant, not all AR-15s are that short, but all are tarred with the same brush. Also to say that a popular model of rifle is used in more shootings, (whilst completely ignoring the fact that the majority of shootings is done with handguns) is like saying we should ban Fords because they are used in most cases of speeding.

Your last comment says everything that is wrong with the vilification of the AR-15, “it’s the spitting image of the US service weapon”, so what? Surely the capability of the firearm is more important than merely how it looks?

The AR-15 is an extremely popular rifle that shoots an extremely popular cartridge, other than how it looks, it is no more or less dangerous than any other semi automatic rifle in the same caliber. The modular nature is part of what makes it so popular, you can add options to it to suit whatever type of shooting you want to do, hunting, target shooting, home defence etc it will do all of these well.

[Last Visit]

NMNeil said:

633Squadron said:

It is not all bad news...

West Virginia offering guns as prizes in COVID vaccine lottery
https://nypost.com/2021/06/01/west-virginia-offeri...

Absolute madness!!!!!
Giving away pickup trucks, when so many people are killed by them every year.

You have no credibility Neil if that honestly is a proper reply. You know exactly the point that is being made.

[Gary C]

MKnight702 said:

The AR-15 is an extremely popular rifle that shoots an extremely popular cartridge, other than how it looks, it is no more or less dangerous than any other semi automatic rifle in the same caliber. The modular nature is part of what makes it so popular, you can add options to it to suit whatever type of shooting you want to do, hunting, target shooting, home defence, mass murder etc it will do all of these well.

Yep, your right. It does its job very well, but you missed a potential use.

but, it is not the weapons fault, that's true. However a single shot bolt action would make mass shootings harder would you not agree ?

No need to have military styled semi-automatic weapons ? that just panders to the Neanderthal tendency (which is in most of us to a greater or lesser degree)

Edited by Gary C on Saturday 5th June 19:46

[aeropilot]

Gary C said:

However a single shot bolt action would make mass shootings harder would you not agree ?

Technically yes, but then the only use for a single shot bolt actions are by the weirdo's that wear bondage jackets with straps and bus-spotter style badges all over them......and they are all a very strange bunch of people.

[MKnight702]

Gary C said:

Yep, your right. It does its job very well, but you missed a potential use.

but, it is not the weapons fault, that's true. However a single shot bolt action would make mass shootings harder would you not agree ?

No need to have military styled semi-automatic weapons ? that just panders to the Neanderthal tendency (which is in most of us to a greater or lesser degree)

Edited by Gary C on Saturday 5th June 19:46

Right, so you admit that the main objection you have is how it looks.

Bolt action rifles are great, but semi automatic is better for some people. Just banning one specific rifle because it looks scary is stupid. Particularly when you are totally happy to let a different rifle with exactly the same ammunition and rate of fire off the hook.

It's like banning the BMW 3 series because it looks like an M3, and the M3 in the wrong hands could massively exceed the speed limit, but ignoring all the other cars equally capable of exceeding the same speed limit.

[Gary C]

MKnight702 said:

Gary C said:

Yep, your right. It does its job very well, but you missed a potential use.

but, it is not the weapons fault, that's true. However a single shot bolt action would make mass shootings harder would you not agree ?

No need to have military styled semi-automatic weapons ? that just panders to the Neanderthal tendency (which is in most of us to a greater or lesser degree)

Edited by Gary C on Saturday 5th June 19:46

Right, so you admit that the main objection you have is how it looks.

Bolt action rifles are great, but semi automatic is better for some people. Just banning one specific rifle because it looks scary is stupid. Particularly when you are totally happy to let a different rifle with exactly the same ammunition and rate of fire off the hook.

It's like banning the BMW 3 series because it looks like an M3, and the M3 in the wrong hands could massively exceed the speed limit, but ignoring all the other cars equally capable of exceeding the same speed limit.

Err, I think you were arguing with someone else.

BUT, I do think making a gun ape a military weapon is pandering to the inner child that characterises a lot of 'gun enthusiasts' and I understand it. A gun is an interesting and iconic object, some even could be described as desirable because of their shape. I remember being in a flea market in Russia where a Thomson machine gun was for sale. It was fun to hold and inspect, same when our armed police let us try out their G36C's.

But (again), I would ban all semi automatics and hand guns

[HM-2]

MKnight702 said:

The above AR-15 is a relatively short variant, not all AR-15s are that short

This is true, but the majority used in mass shootings are carbine length.

MKnight702 said:

Also to say that a popular model of rifle is used in more shootings, (whilst completely ignoring the fact that the majority of shootings is done with handguns) is like saying we should ban Fords because they are used in most cases of speeding.

Couple of things.

Firstly, at no point have I suggested banning anything.

Secondly, whilst you're correct the majority of shootings involve handguns, incidents of mass and spree shooting are disproportionately conducted using semi-automatic rifles derived from assault rifles, of which the AR-15 is by far the most common.

MKnight702 said:

Your last comment says everything that is wrong with the vilification of the AR-15, “it’s the spitting image of the US service weapon”, so what? Surely the capability of the firearm is more important than merely how it looks?

My last comment was simply a reflection on why it might be popular with the deranged Rambo types who tend to shoot up public places or go postal at work. It's not a "vilification" or reflection on the weapon in question, simply an observation.

That said, there are plenty more specific characteristics that set an AR-15 apart from a utility rifle such as a Mini-14. In fact from an entirely objective and rational perspective, the AR-15 is a bit of a solution looking for a problem in the context of most civilian shooters.

It's substantially inferior to a larger calibre handgun for home defence; comparatively heavy and unwieldy, relatively low KO factor and high risk of overpenetration. If I was snap shooting in a constrained environment such as inside a house, at engagement ranges of 10 yards and under, knowing my daughter might be sleeping on the other side of a wall, a .45, .40 S&W .357 SIG or even a short barrelled shotgun would be more effective given that you'd typically be engaging perhaps three targets at an absolute maximum.

For hunting, it occupies and awkward space between smaller rimfire rifles such as the 10/22 and larger semi-automatic and bolt action rifles. It's a bit overkill for varminting unless you're doing it at 100+ yard ranges, though better suited with lighter bullet weights. Conversely it's underpowered for anything much bigger than muntjac, and AR-15 pattern rifles are relatively heavy. What's a typical AR-15 weigh in at? About 4-5kg loaded with optics depending on barrel length and the like? For the same or less you could carry a bolt action chambered in .308 or 7mm-08 that will be more accurate, reach further, hit harder and be more likely to make a clean and humane kill on whatever you are hunting. What does it lose to an AR-15? Well you won't be able to make rapid follow up shots but the utility there is relatively questionable anyway as the number of people who can reliably hit a fast moving animal at say 150 yards regardless of what they're carrying is pretty small. Oh, and less felt recoil which doesn't really matter unless you intend on putting a few hundred rounds through your shoulder. I suspect they're a pretty decent "sweet spot" for midsized stuff like hogs or turkey though.

Overall they're a sort of jack-of-all-trades for most civilian shooters and that's probably what makes them so popular. And there's nothing wrong with that. I don't want anyone to assume that my thinking there are better tools for the job means they should be banned or restricted, that's not my point. But they do hold a certain sway or attraction which isn't necessarily borne out by their actual utility.

You can legally buy AR-15 style rifles in a multitude of other countries in Europe but they're relatively unpopular compared to in the US. Some of that is higher levels of restriction around centrefire semi-automatic weapons but I don't think that accounts for all of it. My personal view is that when people are forced to justify purchases as part of a regulatory environment they tend to pick tools that suit their intended role rather than buying things "just because". Don't get me wrong, there's nothing wrong with "just because"- nobody needs to own 35 watches- but the AR-15 seems to encapsulate something intangible within the US firearms movement. I suppose it doesn't help that the government has spent decades basically preventing or inhibiting most foreign competitors being able to effectively sell competing products.

MKnight702 said:

The AR-15 is an extremely popular rifle that shoots an extremely popular cartridge, other than how it looks, it is no more or less dangerous than any other semi automatic rifle in the same caliber.

I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. Inherently no weapon is in and of itself "dangerous". The danger is a product of the users. Pointing out a propensity for a certain type of firearm to be disproportionately used within a certain type of incident shouldn't be construed as an attack on the inanimate object in question. Unless of course it relates to a specific factor or design choice which makes it prone to misuse (eg open bolt semi-automatic pistols which can readily and easily be converted for fully automatic fire).

[Gary C]

aeropilot said:

Gary C said:

However a single shot bolt action would make mass shootings harder would you not agree ?

Technically yes, but then the only use for a single shot bolt actions are by the weirdo's that wear bondage jackets with straps and bus-spotter style badges all over them......and they are all a very strange bunch of people.

Hee, hee

but if a single shot was all that was available, then the hunting fraternity would use them.

I owned and used a shot gun for a number of years and never though 'damn, I wish I had another 40 rounds to shoot that duck'

[HM-2]

Gary C said:

I owned and used a shot gun for a number of years and never though 'damn, I wish I had another 40 rounds to shoot that duck'

I'm ambivalent about the effectiveness of magazine size limits. Though I literally cannot think of a single civilian firearm use which is in anyway impeded by only having ten round magazines, I also don't think that reducing the potential number of people a spree shooter can kill before having to reload really addresses the core problem. A bit like limiting aircraft to only carrying half their capacity after one crashes rather than grounding them to actually solve the problem that caused it.

[red_slr]

The reason for the AR being so popular is cost. Simple as that. Rifles, ammo, mods, mags etc. All cheap and easy to get.

Also, a lot of people get the development of the AR15 the wrong way round.

People think that the AR15 is "based on the military version - the M16". ITS NOT!!

Its actually the other way round. The AR15 existed before the M16. The rifle was developed in the 1950s.
The military needed a fast simple solution to replace the M14 for Vietnam as they were being out gunned by the AK.
Colt / Armalite came forward and the AR15 BECAME the M16. Before Nam no one was interested in the AR15 - FWIW.

Armalite then knew they had a good cheap easy to produce product.
They produced them for the domestic market from the 70s till 1994 when they were banned.

In 2004 that ban was overturned and because the patent had expired every gun company in the land started to produce an AR pattern rifle.

Its not some space aged super dooper military rifle that is unbeatable by any other rifle. Its a product of WW2. It has a lot of flaws.

The 5.56 will be dropped by the US Army in the next couple of years. Most NATO members expect to drop the 5.56 by 2035.
They will all be replaced with 6.8mms - a much more modern and combat proven round on the modern battlefield.

Just how the "5.56 is military and thus must be only used for military" will cope when this change happens I am not quite sure...

[aeropilot]

Gary C said:

aeropilot said:

Gary C said:

However a single shot bolt action would make mass shootings harder would you not agree ?

Technically yes, but then the only use for a single shot bolt actions are by the weirdo's that wear bondage jackets with straps and bus-spotter style badges all over them......and they are all a very strange bunch of people.

Hee, hee

but if a single shot was all that was available, then the hunting fraternity would use them.

I wouldn't want to be in Alaska or somewhere like that where large Grizzly's or Polar Bear's are roaming about and only have access to a single shot bolt action rifle, especially if one was coming at you from close range, and you missed or didn't drop the bugger with that one shot.....