The U.S.A. Mass Shootings Thread
Discussion
g4ry13 said:
They broke into someone's home and stole the guns.
Arguably the owner of the guns didn't have them securely stored but they hardly acquired them via legal methods.
I'd argue the owner would absolutely argue they had them securely stored.Arguably the owner of the guns didn't have them securely stored but they hardly acquired them via legal methods.
And that's the problem. The idea that responsibile gun owners are actually responsible is a bit like our government trotting out the 'we trust the people to have common sense' line as they have for lockdowns/social distancing/etc. There isn't any.
With America having so many guns about, you don't have to go far to find one, legally owned, just laying about somewhere because the owner doesn't want to keep it locked in a safe.
Therefore people with bad intentions are gonna find the 'responsible' owner's gun(s) pretty easily.
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.
If mass shooters used the top one like they do the bottom then you'd have more people calling for it to be banned.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 AR-15 seems to be the gun of choice for most of these mass shootings, hence more people know about them, hence more people want them banned.
MKnight702 said:
RUNAMOK said:
There are lots of differences between the Ruger Mini14 and an AR15 variant which gives the latter enhanced lethality. Which is why these rifles and similar are used by western militaries. Light weight, reduced recoil, larger capacity magazines, pistol grip making it easier to wield and reload, easier magazine release, adjustable stock, rails to carry different accessories, etc etc. It isn't that people don't like the 'way the look'. They look that way for a reason, to make them more effective at their job, which for these rifles is killing soldiers in dynamic situations. While the rifles are similar in many respects, it is totally rational to be more accepting of one than the other (which isn't to say either are necessary in normal societies..!)
The highlighted is just plain wrong. The AR-15 is a semi automatic civilian firearm and has always been such. No army in the world uses the AR-15 so it was not designed to be used by soldiers to kill soldiers, this is I think, the problem. People mistake the AR-15 for an assault rifle because it looks similar to one, but it is not, and has never been an assault rifle. And no, the AR does not stand for Assault Rifle, it stands for Armalite Rifle the original designer/manufacturer.As for your so called "enhanced lethality" here is a Mini 14 in a different stock, with all the so called features you mentioned, yet again, none of the anti gun movement are calling for an outright ban on the Mini 14.
The AR platform is one of the most popular rifles and it is relatively cheap to purchase so it isn't really that surprising to see that it is used in more shootings, this is not an issue with the rifle but it is more the fault of the mass availability of the AR and its cost, there are many, many different manufacturers producing their own AR-15 rifles, it is the Hot Hatch of the firearms world.
Just banning the AR-15 is like trying to ban all hot hatches because they are the most popular car for joy riding.
RUNAMOK said:
I think the lobbies want to ban all rifles like this because these features are there to enhance weapon handling in combat situations, hence have a significant dividend in mass shootings but no benefit for legitimate use.
What then is "your" definition of 'legitimate use'....?Because, many of those same features make do them the default choice in various 'legitimate' shooting sport competitions.
aeropilot said:
RUNAMOK said:
I think the lobbies want to ban all rifles like this because these features are there to enhance weapon handling in combat situations, hence have a significant dividend in mass shootings but no benefit for legitimate use.
What then is "your" definition of 'legitimate use'....?Because, many of those same features make do them the default choice in various 'legitimate' shooting sport competitions.
red_slr said:
Mini rifle. Would be pointless straight away with 10 round mags. Some details I carry 8 x 25 rnd mags and I burn through every single round too. If I could carry extra mags I would but 8 is about the most I can fit on my person and still be able to run, lie down, get round obstacles etc.
All my .223 mags that I use in Civilian Service Rifle comps are 25 round P mags, for the simple reason of I can rest the bottom of the mag on the ground when shooting!
Out of interest, why do you burn through rounds ? Can't imagine needing 25 rounds to hunt.All my .223 mags that I use in Civilian Service Rifle comps are 25 round P mags, for the simple reason of I can rest the bottom of the mag on the ground when shooting!
Is that competition shooting ? Running and jumping about with live ammunition, sounds fun !
RUNAMOK said:
There are lots of differences between the Ruger Mini14 and an AR15 variant which gives the latter enhanced lethality. Which is why these rifles and similar are used by western militaries. Light weight, reduced recoil, larger capacity magazines, pistol grip making it easier to wield and reload, easier magazine release, adjustable stock, rails to carry different accessories, etc etc. It isn't that people don't like the 'way the look'. They look that way for a reason, to make them more effective at their job, which for these rifles is killing soldiers in dynamic situations. While the rifles are similar in many respects, it is totally rational to be more accepting of one than the other (which isn't to say either are necessary in normal societies..!)
It's not though. The latter is more suited to military use (because of factors unrelated to lethality such as resistance to rough treatment, being thrown about, etc) but when it comes to hosing down a room full of unarmed civilians there is literally no difference to choose between them.AR-15's are hated simply for their looks.
jimmyjimjim said:
Gary C said:
jimmyjimjim said:
The AR is just the low hanging fruit. Banning them would have no effect on shootings.
So ban all auto, semi-auto and hand guns thenjimmyjimjim said:
if you're carrying it, you're more likely to use it, than if you've got to go back home and get it out of the safe, cooling off on the drive.
Its a hell of a state when anyone even thinks that shooting someone is an answer, such that you rely on a cooling off to prevent it !As above, I really don't like open or concealed carry. I think it lends itself to hot tempered morons shooting people - and there's plenty of evidence to support that; if you look at the last few shootings, it's easy to distinguish the 'planned' from the 'unplanned' shootings. I do think that banning any form of carry would be sensible - Texas's move is not a good one.
Edited by jimmyjimjim on Sunday 6th June 05:21
MKnight702 said:
The highlighted is just plain wrong. The AR-15 is a semi automatic civilian firearm and has always been such. No army in the world uses the AR-15 so it was not designed to be used by soldiers to kill soldiers, this is I think, the problem. People mistake the AR-15 for an assault rifle because it looks similar to one, but it is not, and has never been an assault rifle. And no, the AR does not stand for Assault Rifle, it stands for Armalite Rifle the original designer/manufacturer.
As for your so called "enhanced lethality" here is a Mini 14 in a different stock, with all the so called features you mentioned, yet again, none of the anti gun movement are calling for an outright ban on the Mini 14.
The AR platform is one of the most popular rifles and it is relatively cheap to purchase so it isn't really that surprising to see that it is used in more shootings, this is not an issue with the rifle but it is more the fault of the mass availability of the AR and its cost, there are many, many different manufacturers producing their own AR-15 rifles, it is the Hot Hatch of the firearms world.
Just banning the AR-15 is like trying to ban all hot hatches because they are the most popular car for joy riding.
Dating yourself a bit there!!As for your so called "enhanced lethality" here is a Mini 14 in a different stock, with all the so called features you mentioned, yet again, none of the anti gun movement are calling for an outright ban on the Mini 14.
The AR platform is one of the most popular rifles and it is relatively cheap to purchase so it isn't really that surprising to see that it is used in more shootings, this is not an issue with the rifle but it is more the fault of the mass availability of the AR and its cost, there are many, many different manufacturers producing their own AR-15 rifles, it is the Hot Hatch of the firearms world.
Just banning the AR-15 is like trying to ban all hot hatches because they are the most popular car for joy riding.
I think this whole “AR-15” discussion is at best semantics.
Its like everyone calls a vacuum cleaner a “Hoover”. Yet the vast majority out there are not actually “Hoover” brand vacuum cleaners, but everyone knows what is being inferred.
“AR-15” has just become common parlance (rightly or wrongly) for a particular style of weapon, and arguing the toss about the technicalities of it, regardless of how correct you are is futile.
Its like everyone calls a vacuum cleaner a “Hoover”. Yet the vast majority out there are not actually “Hoover” brand vacuum cleaners, but everyone knows what is being inferred.
“AR-15” has just become common parlance (rightly or wrongly) for a particular style of weapon, and arguing the toss about the technicalities of it, regardless of how correct you are is futile.
AJL308 said:
It isn't in the majority of states. Full-auto has been Federally registered and regulated since 1937 or something. There is literally no argument for banning full-auto. There has not been a single unlawful fatality with a registered full-auto weapon since they went on registration save for one instance in the early 1980's when an Ohio police officer used his personally owned machinegun to murder a drug dealing informant (so no great loss there, then) and he could easily have accessed them through work in any event. Full-auto's are no problem in the US. Anyone who advocates banning them on public safety grounds is either deluded or lying.
I see you're a fan of police murdering 'bad guys' without trial.Lovely.
AW111 said:
AJL308 said:
It isn't in the majority of states. Full-auto has been Federally registered and regulated since 1937 or something. There is literally no argument for banning full-auto. There has not been a single unlawful fatality with a registered full-auto weapon since they went on registration save for one instance in the early 1980's when an Ohio police officer used his personally owned machinegun to murder a drug dealing informant (so no great loss there, then) and he could easily have accessed them through work in any event. Full-auto's are no problem in the US. Anyone who advocates banning them on public safety grounds is either deluded or lying.
I see you're a fan of police murdering 'bad guys' without trial.Lovely.
Gary C said:
red_slr said:
Mini rifle. Would be pointless straight away with 10 round mags. Some details I carry 8 x 25 rnd mags and I burn through every single round too. If I could carry extra mags I would but 8 is about the most I can fit on my person and still be able to run, lie down, get round obstacles etc.
All my .223 mags that I use in Civilian Service Rifle comps are 25 round P mags, for the simple reason of I can rest the bottom of the mag on the ground when shooting!
Out of interest, why do you burn through rounds ? Can't imagine needing 25 rounds to hunt.All my .223 mags that I use in Civilian Service Rifle comps are 25 round P mags, for the simple reason of I can rest the bottom of the mag on the ground when shooting!
Is that competition shooting ? Running and jumping about with live ammunition, sounds fun !
Each stage can be different but you are generally closing down on a series of paper and steel targets.
Between each firing point you have to run (assuming you want to be competitive).
dvs_dave said:
I think this whole “AR-15” discussion is at best semantics.
Its like everyone calls a vacuum cleaner a “Hoover”. Yet the vast majority out there are not actually “Hoover” brand vacuum cleaners, but everyone knows what is being inferred.
“AR-15” has just become common parlance (rightly or wrongly) for a particular style of weapon, and arguing the toss about the technicalities of it, regardless of how correct you are is futile.
The first rifle that looked like an assault rifle was the German STG-44 introduced in 1944. The STG is an abbreviation of Sturmgefur or storm rifle.Its like everyone calls a vacuum cleaner a “Hoover”. Yet the vast majority out there are not actually “Hoover” brand vacuum cleaners, but everyone knows what is being inferred.
“AR-15” has just become common parlance (rightly or wrongly) for a particular style of weapon, and arguing the toss about the technicalities of it, regardless of how correct you are is futile.
The design was copied in the mid 1940's and introduced as the AK-47 by the Russians, although the operating mechanism was different.
It was then copied by Eugene Stoner in the 1950's as the AR-10, which went on to become the AR-15 and M-16 series.
Stoner copied the spring loaded cover on the ejector port and the reinforcing pattern of the magazine from the STG-44.
But it was only in 1985 that the term 'assault rifle' was first used. And the term was coined by a California politician who tried, unsuccessfully, to have them banned.
NMNeil said:
dvs_dave said:
I think this whole “AR-15” discussion is at best semantics.
Its like everyone calls a vacuum cleaner a “Hoover”. Yet the vast majority out there are not actually “Hoover” brand vacuum cleaners, but everyone knows what is being inferred.
“AR-15” has just become common parlance (rightly or wrongly) for a particular style of weapon, and arguing the toss about the technicalities of it, regardless of how correct you are is futile.
The first rifle that looked like an assault rifle was the German STG-44 introduced in 1944. The STG is an abbreviation of Sturmgefur or storm rifle.Its like everyone calls a vacuum cleaner a “Hoover”. Yet the vast majority out there are not actually “Hoover” brand vacuum cleaners, but everyone knows what is being inferred.
“AR-15” has just become common parlance (rightly or wrongly) for a particular style of weapon, and arguing the toss about the technicalities of it, regardless of how correct you are is futile.
The design was copied in the mid 1940's and introduced as the AK-47 by the Russians, although the operating mechanism was different.
It was then copied by Eugene Stoner in the 1950's as the AR-10, which went on to become the AR-15 and M-16 series.
Stoner copied the spring loaded cover on the ejector port and the reinforcing pattern of the magazine from the STG-44.
But it was only in 1985 that the term 'assault rifle' was first used. And the term was coined by a California politician who tried, unsuccessfully, to have them banned.
red_slr said:
Gary C said:
red_slr said:
Mini rifle. Would be pointless straight away with 10 round mags. Some details I carry 8 x 25 rnd mags and I burn through every single round too. If I could carry extra mags I would but 8 is about the most I can fit on my person and still be able to run, lie down, get round obstacles etc.
All my .223 mags that I use in Civilian Service Rifle comps are 25 round P mags, for the simple reason of I can rest the bottom of the mag on the ground when shooting!
Out of interest, why do you burn through rounds ? Can't imagine needing 25 rounds to hunt.All my .223 mags that I use in Civilian Service Rifle comps are 25 round P mags, for the simple reason of I can rest the bottom of the mag on the ground when shooting!
Is that competition shooting ? Running and jumping about with live ammunition, sounds fun !
Each stage can be different but you are generally closing down on a series of paper and steel targets.
Between each firing point you have to run (assuming you want to be competitive).
bigandclever said:
NMNeil said:
But it was only in 1985 that the term 'assault rifle' was first used. And the term was coined by a California politician who tried, unsuccessfully, to have them banned.
I find that very hard to believe (the 1985 bit).HM-2 said:
bigandclever said:
NMNeil said:
But it was only in 1985 that the term 'assault rifle' was first used. And the term was coined by a California politician who tried, unsuccessfully, to have them banned.
I find that very hard to believe (the 1985 bit).Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff