"Repeal The Second Amendment!"

[2aguy]

A Gatling gun would be much more efficient than a bump stock for thinning out concert crowds.

Actually, a rental truck would kill more people....

The Vegas shooter used 2 rifles, not one........and fired over 1,000 rounds of ammo into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people...

He murdered 58.

The muslim terrorist in Nice, France, used a rental truck.......

He murdered 86 people.....

Trucks are deadlier than AR-15s.....

pismoe said he didn't approve of restrictions on fully automatic weapons. As you point out, the LV shooter managed to get off 1,000 rounds. I can only imagine the carnage if he had used an M134 Minigun (The M134 Minigun is a 7.62×51mm NATO, six-barrel rotary machine gun with a high rate of fire (2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute) which can also fire at a high sustained rate. It features Gatling-style rotating barrels with an external power source, normally an electric motor.).

It is hard for me to understand how anyone could think owning an M134 should be legal except in extraordinary cases. As a rational, 2nd amendment advocate I'm curious what do you think?

And it wouldn't be covered by the 2nd Amendment....."Bearing Arms" is the key......I support the point in Heller that bearable arms are covered.....something the average infantry soldier in the past, present or even the future would carry. Our current point with fully automatic weapons is a line I can live with, accessible but with limits.......but that is it......the attack on AR-15s is ridiculous and shows that ant gun extremists will not stop at rational points....they want all guns....

 

[2aguy]

Nobody will miss the second amendment
It serves no purpose at the federal level

Let the states decide

That's a good reminder that conservatives only pretend to be for states' rights as a general principle.

No, twit...we are for individual Rights...at the point that States violate individual Rights....as when the democrats used Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting, the Federal Government had to step in....when the Federal government violates individual Rights, then the states step in....it is called checks and balances......that is what we support.....

 

[2aguy]

---------------------------------- GATLING Gun is too big to move into a hotel room in a covert fashion as your imaginations goes wild Alang .

No imagination required:
Motorized Handheld 5.56mm Gatling Gun: The XM556 Microgun
The smallest 5.56 Gatling, and the first designed to be handheld.

And if I'm not mistaken that weapon is 100% illegal for the general public since it is an automatic weapon manufactured after 1986

I believe you are correct, however my question to pismoe, 2aguy, and you is: Should automatic weapons remain illegal for the general public?

Technically, no. Fully automatic weapons once were available to the public......and pose no greater danger than any other weapon....had the Vegas shooter not used a bump stock, he likely would have murdered more people....a fully automatic weapon is harder to control...which is why the U.S. military stopped supplying infantry with fully automatic rifles and left them with the 3 round burst......

 

[pismoe]

---------------------------------- GATLING Gun is too big to move into a hotel room in a covert fashion as your imaginations goes wild Alang .

No imagination required:
Motorized Handheld 5.56mm Gatling Gun: The XM556 Microgun
The smallest 5.56 Gatling, and the first designed to be handheld.

And if I'm not mistaken that weapon is 100% illegal for the general public since it is an automatic weapon manufactured after 1986

I believe you are correct, however my question to pismoe, 2aguy, and you is: Should automatic weapons remain illegal for the general public?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------- machine guns are LEGAL in a class 3 states. I have been to gunstores that sell Class 3 weapons and of coutse they should be to be LEGAL if a guy has the money Alang .

 

[alang1216]

A Gatling gun would be much more efficient than a bump stock for thinning out concert crowds.

Actually, a rental truck would kill more people....

The Vegas shooter used 2 rifles, not one........and fired over 1,000 rounds of ammo into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people...

He murdered 58.

The muslim terrorist in Nice, France, used a rental truck.......

He murdered 86 people.....

Trucks are deadlier than AR-15s.....

pismoe said he didn't approve of restrictions on fully automatic weapons. As you point out, the LV shooter managed to get off 1,000 rounds. I can only imagine the carnage if he had used an M134 Minigun (The M134 Minigun is a 7.62×51mm NATO, six-barrel rotary machine gun with a high rate of fire (2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute) which can also fire at a high sustained rate. It features Gatling-style rotating barrels with an external power source, normally an electric motor.).

It is hard for me to understand how anyone could think owning an M134 should be legal except in extraordinary cases. As a rational, 2nd amendment advocate I'm curious what do you think?

And it wouldn't be covered by the 2nd Amendment....."Bearing Arms" is the key......I support the point in Heller that bearable arms are covered.....something the average infantry soldier in the past, present or even the future would carry. Our current point with fully automatic weapons is a line I can live with, accessible but with limits.......but that is it......the attack on AR-15s is ridiculous and shows that ant gun extremists will not stop at rational points....they want all guns....

Is the line in the sand really the type of weapon? It seems to me that it is the rate of fire, ammo type, and the capacity between reloads that matters. Is there some limitation on any of these you would support?

 

[pismoe]

A Gatling gun would be much more efficient than a bump stock for thinning out concert crowds.

Actually, a rental truck would kill more people....

The Vegas shooter used 2 rifles, not one........and fired over 1,000 rounds of ammo into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people...

He murdered 58.

The muslim terrorist in Nice, France, used a rental truck.......

He murdered 86 people.....

Trucks are deadlier than AR-15s.....

pismoe said he didn't approve of restrictions on fully automatic weapons. As you point out, the LV shooter managed to get off 1,000 rounds. I can only imagine the carnage if he had used an M134 Minigun (The M134 Minigun is a 7.62×51mm NATO, six-barrel rotary machine gun with a high rate of fire (2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute) which can also fire at a high sustained rate. It features Gatling-style rotating barrels with an external power source, normally an electric motor.).

It is hard for me to understand how anyone could think owning an M134 should be legal except in extraordinary cases. As a rational, 2nd amendment advocate I'm curious what do you think?

And it wouldn't be covered by the 2nd Amendment....."Bearing Arms" is the key......I support the point in Heller that bearable arms are covered.....something the average infantry soldier in the past, present or even the future would carry. Our current point with fully automatic weapons is a line I can live with, accessible but with limits.......but that is it......the attack on AR-15s is ridiculous and shows that ant gun extremists will not stop at rational points....they want all guns....

Is the line in the sand really the type of weapon? It seems to me that it is the rate of fire, ammo type, and the capacity between reloads that matters. Is there some limitation on any of these you would support?

-------------------------------------- they'll never be satisfied as they will ALWAYS be looking for reasons to restrict .

 

[2aguy]

A Gatling gun would be much more efficient than a bump stock for thinning out concert crowds.

Actually, a rental truck would kill more people....

The Vegas shooter used 2 rifles, not one........and fired over 1,000 rounds of ammo into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people...

He murdered 58.

The muslim terrorist in Nice, France, used a rental truck.......

He murdered 86 people.....

Trucks are deadlier than AR-15s.....

pismoe said he didn't approve of restrictions on fully automatic weapons. As you point out, the LV shooter managed to get off 1,000 rounds. I can only imagine the carnage if he had used an M134 Minigun (The M134 Minigun is a 7.62×51mm NATO, six-barrel rotary machine gun with a high rate of fire (2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute) which can also fire at a high sustained rate. It features Gatling-style rotating barrels with an external power source, normally an electric motor.).

It is hard for me to understand how anyone could think owning an M134 should be legal except in extraordinary cases. As a rational, 2nd amendment advocate I'm curious what do you think?

And it wouldn't be covered by the 2nd Amendment....."Bearing Arms" is the key......I support the point in Heller that bearable arms are covered.....something the average infantry soldier in the past, present or even the future would carry. Our current point with fully automatic weapons is a line I can live with, accessible but with limits.......but that is it......the attack on AR-15s is ridiculous and shows that ant gun extremists will not stop at rational points....they want all guns....

Is the line in the sand really the type of weapon? It seems to me that it is the rate of fire, ammo type, and the capacity between reloads that matters. Is there some limitation on any of these you would support?

No... I wouldn't support most of that. I will live with current regulations on fully automatic weapons...but that is pretty much it.

We have close to 600 million guns in the country and over 16.3 million people carry guns for self defense......law abiding gun owners are not using their guns for any form of crime or murder.

Our attention should focus on actual gun criminals...of the 11,000 gun murder in this country 90% are committed by criminals who cannot legally buy, own or carry guns, who have at least one felony conviction and who are repeatedly let out of prison, even after numerous gun crimes.
'
My actual proposal to stop gun crime is to lock up violent gun criminals, those who use guns for rape, robbery or murder for 30 years.....we had a felon, with 4 felony convictions murder a police officer here in Chicago...with numerous gun violations he served 16 years in prison, got out and murdered this officer...that is the problem..

Japan stopped their Yakuza from using guns and grenades in the latest round of violence by imposing 30 year sentences for criminals caught in possession of guns...

That is how you tackle gun violence...you don't do it by going after law abiding gun owners....Britain is finding this out...they banned and confiscated guns...and their gun crime rate keeps going up...up 23% around Britain as a whole ,and 42% in London....

As to magazine Capacity...here is some actual research into why banning them is not useful......

The link may not be working...it worked before...just type in Gary Kleck and Magazines...and it should take you to where you can get the whole paper...

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.
News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.
In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----

How Often Have Bystanders Intervened While a Mass Shooter Was Trying to Reload?

First, we consider the issue of how many times people have disrupted a mass shooting while the shooter was trying to load a detachable magazine into a semiautomatic gun.

Note that 16 it is irrelevant whether interveners have stopped a shooter while trying to reload some other type of gun, using other kinds of magazines, since we are addressing the potential significance of restrictions on the capacity of detachable magazines which are used only with semiautomatic firearms.

Thus, bystander intervention directed at shooters using other types of guns that take much longer to reload than a semiautomatic gun using detachable magazines could not provide any guidance as to the likelihood of bystander intervention when the shooter was using a semiautomatic gun equipped with detachable magazines that can be reloaded very quickly.

Prospective interveners would presumably be more likely to tackle a shooter who took a long time to reload than one who took only 2-4 seconds to do so.

Likewise, bystander interventions that occurred at a time when the shooter was not reloading (e.g., when he was struggling with a defective gun or magazine) are irrelevant, since that kind of intervention could occur regardless of what kinds of magazines or firearms the shooter was using.


It is the need to reload detachable magazines sooner and more often that differentiates shooters using smaller detachable magazines from those using larger ones.

For the period 1994-2013 inclusive, we identified three mass shooting incidents in which it was claimed that interveners disrupted the shooting by tackling the shooter while he was trying to reload.

In only one of the three cases, however, did interveners actually tackle the shooter while he may have been reloading a semiautomatic firearm.

In one of the incidents, the weapon in question was a shotgun that had to be reloaded by inserting one shotshell at a time into the weapon (Knoxville News Sentinel “Takedown of Alleged Shooter Recounted” July 29, 2008, regarding a shooting in Knoxville, TN on July 27, 2008), and so the incident is irrelevant to the effects of detachable LCMs.


In another incident, occurring in Springfield, Oregon on May 21, 1998, the shooter, Kip Kinkel, was using a semiautomatic gun, and he was tackled by bystanders, but not while he was reloading.

After exhausting the ammunition in one gun, the shooter started 17 firing another loaded gun, one of three firearms he had with him.

The first intervener was shot in the hand in the course of wresting this still-loaded gun away from the shooter (The (Portland) Oregonian, May 23, 1998).


The final case occurred in Tucson, AZ on January 8, 2011.

This is the shooting in which Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Representative Gabrielle Giffords.

The shooter was using a semiautomatic firearm and was tackled by bystanders, purportedly while trying to reload a detachable magazine.

Even in this case, however, there were important uncertainties.

According to one news account, one bystander “grabbed a full magazine” that the shooter dropped, and two others helped subdue him (Associated Press, January 9, 2011).

It is not, however, clear whether this bystander intervention was facilitated because

(1) the shooter was reloading, or because

(2) the shooter stopping firing when his gun or magazine failed to function properly.

Eyewitness testimony, including that of the interveners, was inconsistent as to exactly why or how the intervention transpired in Giffords shooting.

One intervener insisted that he was sure the shooter had exhausted the ammunition in the first magazine (and thus was about to reload) because he saw the gun’s slide locked back – a condition he believed could only occur with this particular firearm after the last round is fired.

In fact, this can also happen when the guns jams, i.e. fails to chamber the next round (Salzgeber 2014; Morrill 2014).

Complicating matters further, the New York Times reported that the spring on the second magazine was broken, presumably rendering it incapable of functioning.

Their story’s headline and text characterized this mechanical failure as “perhaps the only fortunate event of the day” (New York Times “A Single, Terrifying Moment: Shots, Scuffle, Some Luck,” January 10, 2011, p. A1)

. If the New York Times account was accurate, the shooter would not have been able to continue shooting with that magazine even if no one had stopped him from loading it into his gun.

Detachable magazines of any size can malfunction, which would at least temporarily stop a prospective mass shooter from firing, and thereby provide an opportunity for bystanders to stop the shooter.
It is possible that the bystander intervention in the Tucson case could have occurred regardless of what size magazines the shooter possessed, since a shooter struggling with a defective small-capacity magazine would be just as vulnerable to disruption as one struggling with a defective large-capacity magazine. Thus, it remains unclear whether the shooter was reloading when the bystanders tackled him.
-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

 

[2aguy]

A Gatling gun would be much more efficient than a bump stock for thinning out concert crowds.

Actually, a rental truck would kill more people....

The Vegas shooter used 2 rifles, not one........and fired over 1,000 rounds of ammo into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people...

He murdered 58.

The muslim terrorist in Nice, France, used a rental truck.......

He murdered 86 people.....

Trucks are deadlier than AR-15s.....

pismoe said he didn't approve of restrictions on fully automatic weapons. As you point out, the LV shooter managed to get off 1,000 rounds. I can only imagine the carnage if he had used an M134 Minigun (The M134 Minigun is a 7.62×51mm NATO, six-barrel rotary machine gun with a high rate of fire (2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute) which can also fire at a high sustained rate. It features Gatling-style rotating barrels with an external power source, normally an electric motor.).

It is hard for me to understand how anyone could think owning an M134 should be legal except in extraordinary cases. As a rational, 2nd amendment advocate I'm curious what do you think?

And it wouldn't be covered by the 2nd Amendment....."Bearing Arms" is the key......I support the point in Heller that bearable arms are covered.....something the average infantry soldier in the past, present or even the future would carry. Our current point with fully automatic weapons is a line I can live with, accessible but with limits.......but that is it......the attack on AR-15s is ridiculous and shows that ant gun extremists will not stop at rational points....they want all guns....

Is the line in the sand really the type of weapon? It seems to me that it is the rate of fire, ammo type, and the capacity between reloads that matters. Is there some limitation on any of these you would support?

Here is the truth about gun ownership....law abiding gun owners do not increase the crime rate...and taking guns away from them will not lower the crime rate....Our Country has shown this over 21 years of experience with increasing ownership and decreasing crime...while Britain, and Australia banned and confiscated guns...and now have increasing gun crime rates...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[Skull Pilot]

A Gatling gun would be much more efficient than a bump stock for thinning out concert crowds.

Actually, a rental truck would kill more people....

The Vegas shooter used 2 rifles, not one........and fired over 1,000 rounds of ammo into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people...

He murdered 58.

The muslim terrorist in Nice, France, used a rental truck.......

He murdered 86 people.....

Trucks are deadlier than AR-15s.....

pismoe said he didn't approve of restrictions on fully automatic weapons. As you point out, the LV shooter managed to get off 1,000 rounds. I can only imagine the carnage if he had used an M134 Minigun (The M134 Minigun is a 7.62×51mm NATO, six-barrel rotary machine gun with a high rate of fire (2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute) which can also fire at a high sustained rate. It features Gatling-style rotating barrels with an external power source, normally an electric motor.).

It is hard for me to understand how anyone could think owning an M134 should be legal except in extraordinary cases. As a rational, 2nd amendment advocate I'm curious what do you think?

And it wouldn't be covered by the 2nd Amendment....."Bearing Arms" is the key......I support the point in Heller that bearable arms are covered.....something the average infantry soldier in the past, present or even the future would carry. Our current point with fully automatic weapons is a line I can live with, accessible but with limits.......but that is it......the attack on AR-15s is ridiculous and shows that ant gun extremists will not stop at rational points....they want all guns....

Is the line in the sand really the type of weapon? It seems to me that it is the rate of fire, ammo type, and the capacity between reloads that matters. Is there some limitation on any of these you would support?

We already have restrictions on automatic weapons there is no need for restrictions on semiautomatics

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody will miss the second amendment
It serves no purpose at the federal level

Let the states decide

That's a good reminder that conservatives only pretend to be for states' rights as a general principle.

No, twit...we are for individual Rights...at the point that States violate individual Rights....as when the democrats used Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting, the Federal Government had to step in....when the Federal government violates individual Rights, then the states step in....it is called checks and balances......that is what we support.....

Except for something like abortion, or same sex marriage. lol

 

[alang1216]

A Gatling gun would be much more efficient than a bump stock for thinning out concert crowds.

Actually, a rental truck would kill more people....

The Vegas shooter used 2 rifles, not one........and fired over 1,000 rounds of ammo into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people...

He murdered 58.

The muslim terrorist in Nice, France, used a rental truck.......

He murdered 86 people.....

Trucks are deadlier than AR-15s.....

pismoe said he didn't approve of restrictions on fully automatic weapons. As you point out, the LV shooter managed to get off 1,000 rounds. I can only imagine the carnage if he had used an M134 Minigun (The M134 Minigun is a 7.62×51mm NATO, six-barrel rotary machine gun with a high rate of fire (2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute) which can also fire at a high sustained rate. It features Gatling-style rotating barrels with an external power source, normally an electric motor.).

It is hard for me to understand how anyone could think owning an M134 should be legal except in extraordinary cases. As a rational, 2nd amendment advocate I'm curious what do you think?

And it wouldn't be covered by the 2nd Amendment....."Bearing Arms" is the key......I support the point in Heller that bearable arms are covered.....something the average infantry soldier in the past, present or even the future would carry. Our current point with fully automatic weapons is a line I can live with, accessible but with limits.......but that is it......the attack on AR-15s is ridiculous and shows that ant gun extremists will not stop at rational points....they want all guns....

Is the line in the sand really the type of weapon? It seems to me that it is the rate of fire, ammo type, and the capacity between reloads that matters. Is there some limitation on any of these you would support?

Here is the truth about gun ownership....law abiding gun owners do not increase the crime rate...and taking guns away from them will not lower the crime rate....Our Country has shown this over 21 years of experience with increasing ownership and decreasing crime...while Britain, and Australia banned and confiscated guns...and now have increasing gun crime rates...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Thanks but I'm not a statistician so it is hard for me to really evaluate raw data. Also, it is easy to find other interpretations of the same data. For example:

 

[alang1216]

We already have restrictions on automatic weapons there is no need for restrictions on semiautomatics

I'm heartened to see we're on the same side of the issue, we both support reasonable and effective gun control.

 

[jc456]

A Gatling gun would be much more efficient than a bump stock for thinning out concert crowds.

Actually, a rental truck would kill more people....

The Vegas shooter used 2 rifles, not one........and fired over 1,000 rounds of ammo into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people...

He murdered 58.

The muslim terrorist in Nice, France, used a rental truck.......

He murdered 86 people.....

Trucks are deadlier than AR-15s.....

pismoe said he didn't approve of restrictions on fully automatic weapons. As you point out, the LV shooter managed to get off 1,000 rounds. I can only imagine the carnage if he had used an M134 Minigun (The M134 Minigun is a 7.62×51mm NATO, six-barrel rotary machine gun with a high rate of fire (2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute) which can also fire at a high sustained rate. It features Gatling-style rotating barrels with an external power source, normally an electric motor.).

It is hard for me to understand how anyone could think owning an M134 should be legal except in extraordinary cases. As a rational, 2nd amendment advocate I'm curious what do you think?

the fact that you are afraid of it and not the person holding it is truly amazing. What if he had planted a bomb? I mean, the gun isn't the issue. until you can figure that out, you're useless.

 

[jc456]

Actually, a rental truck would kill more people....

The Vegas shooter used 2 rifles, not one........and fired over 1,000 rounds of ammo into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people...

He murdered 58.

The muslim terrorist in Nice, France, used a rental truck.......

He murdered 86 people.....

Trucks are deadlier than AR-15s.....

pismoe said he didn't approve of restrictions on fully automatic weapons. As you point out, the LV shooter managed to get off 1,000 rounds. I can only imagine the carnage if he had used an M134 Minigun (The M134 Minigun is a 7.62×51mm NATO, six-barrel rotary machine gun with a high rate of fire (2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute) which can also fire at a high sustained rate. It features Gatling-style rotating barrels with an external power source, normally an electric motor.).

It is hard for me to understand how anyone could think owning an M134 should be legal except in extraordinary cases. As a rational, 2nd amendment advocate I'm curious what do you think?

And it wouldn't be covered by the 2nd Amendment....."Bearing Arms" is the key......I support the point in Heller that bearable arms are covered.....something the average infantry soldier in the past, present or even the future would carry. Our current point with fully automatic weapons is a line I can live with, accessible but with limits.......but that is it......the attack on AR-15s is ridiculous and shows that ant gun extremists will not stop at rational points....they want all guns....

Is the line in the sand really the type of weapon? It seems to me that it is the rate of fire, ammo type, and the capacity between reloads that matters. Is there some limitation on any of these you would support?

Here is the truth about gun ownership....law abiding gun owners do not increase the crime rate...and taking guns away from them will not lower the crime rate....Our Country has shown this over 21 years of experience with increasing ownership and decreasing crime...while Britain, and Australia banned and confiscated guns...and now have increasing gun crime rates...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Thanks but I'm not a statistician so it is hard for me to really evaluate raw data. Also, it is easy to find other interpretations of the same data. For example:

LOL, what the fk is that chart? you all just can't seem to understand the real statistics held by the government Knives kill more individuals than guns. wish you all would learn what a person does to complete their mission. oh well, naive is naive.

 

[alang1216]

the fact that you are afraid of it and not the person holding it is truly amazing. What if he had planted a bomb? I mean, the gun isn't the issue. until you can figure that out, you're useless.

The deranged guy scares me, the gun does not. The deranged guy with a gun the terrifies me.

 

[2aguy]

Actually, a rental truck would kill more people....

The Vegas shooter used 2 rifles, not one........and fired over 1,000 rounds of ammo into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people...

He murdered 58.

The muslim terrorist in Nice, France, used a rental truck.......

He murdered 86 people.....

Trucks are deadlier than AR-15s.....

pismoe said he didn't approve of restrictions on fully automatic weapons. As you point out, the LV shooter managed to get off 1,000 rounds. I can only imagine the carnage if he had used an M134 Minigun (The M134 Minigun is a 7.62×51mm NATO, six-barrel rotary machine gun with a high rate of fire (2,000 to 6,000 rounds per minute) which can also fire at a high sustained rate. It features Gatling-style rotating barrels with an external power source, normally an electric motor.).

It is hard for me to understand how anyone could think owning an M134 should be legal except in extraordinary cases. As a rational, 2nd amendment advocate I'm curious what do you think?

And it wouldn't be covered by the 2nd Amendment....."Bearing Arms" is the key......I support the point in Heller that bearable arms are covered.....something the average infantry soldier in the past, present or even the future would carry. Our current point with fully automatic weapons is a line I can live with, accessible but with limits.......but that is it......the attack on AR-15s is ridiculous and shows that ant gun extremists will not stop at rational points....they want all guns....

Is the line in the sand really the type of weapon? It seems to me that it is the rate of fire, ammo type, and the capacity between reloads that matters. Is there some limitation on any of these you would support?

Here is the truth about gun ownership....law abiding gun owners do not increase the crime rate...and taking guns away from them will not lower the crime rate....Our Country has shown this over 21 years of experience with increasing ownership and decreasing crime...while Britain, and Australia banned and confiscated guns...and now have increasing gun crime rates...

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

Thanks but I'm not a statistician so it is hard for me to really evaluate raw data. Also, it is easy to find other interpretations of the same data. For example:

Homicide rate isn't a good indicator........all that shows is that our criminal are willing to commit murder more often than the criminals of other countries. For example....our knife murder rate is higher than the murder rates of those other countries and their entire murder rate.

At the same time...the criminals in Canada, Australia and the U.K. have access to guns....in all 3 countries gun crime is going up, not down, but their criminals are not committing murder with those guns. They have them, they use them, they are just not murdering their victims and fellow criminals.

Meanwhile...in the United States...more Americans own and carry guns...and our gun crime rate, our gun murder rate and our violent crime rate is going down....and Americans use their guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminals...according to research from bill clinton's Department of Justice and obama's Center For Disease Control.......

 

[2aguy]

Nobody will miss the second amendment
It serves no purpose at the federal level

Let the states decide

That's a good reminder that conservatives only pretend to be for states' rights as a general principle.

No, twit...we are for individual Rights...at the point that States violate individual Rights....as when the democrats used Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting, the Federal Government had to step in....when the Federal government violates individual Rights, then the states step in....it is called checks and balances......that is what we support.....

Except for something like abortion, or same sex marriage. lol

Abortion is killing another human being. Same sex marriage is now a weapon used against Christians...violating their 1st Amendment Rights to freedom of religion....

 

[gipper]

Nobody will miss the second amendment
It serves no purpose at the federal level

Let the states decide

That's a good reminder that conservatives only pretend to be for states' rights as a general principle.

No, twit...we are for individual Rights...at the point that States violate individual Rights....as when the democrats used Poll Taxes and Literacy tests to keep blacks from voting, the Federal Government had to step in....when the Federal government violates individual Rights, then the states step in....it is called checks and balances......that is what we support.....

Except for something like abortion, or same sex marriage. lol

Abortion is killing another human being. Same sex marriage is now a weapon used against Christians...violating their 1st Amendment Rights to freedom of religion....

Dumb Deer doesn't know abortion kills a human being. He thinks it is akin to clipping your toe nails.

 

[jc456]

the fact that you are afraid of it and not the person holding it is truly amazing. What if he had planted a bomb? I mean, the gun isn't the issue. until you can figure that out, you're useless.

The deranged guy scares me, the gun does not. The deranged guy with a gun the terrifies me.

the deranged guy with a bomb scares me too. what stops him from building one if you take away the gun? guy named Timothy Veigh accomplished that.

 

[2aguy]

the fact that you are afraid of it and not the person holding it is truly amazing. What if he had planted a bomb? I mean, the gun isn't the issue. until you can figure that out, you're useless.

The deranged guy scares me, the gun does not. The deranged guy with a gun the terrifies me.

And the deranged guy scares us too...that is why we support being able to stop the guy with our own gun....since the cops are 5-7 minutes away...if that, on a good day....