Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Refrain, if you would, from posting the elementary school version of the obvious.
The comment was about the rounds used, I'm not sure why that wouldn't be obvious...
It's not obvious that the comment was about the rounds used and not the weapon because the OP question to which you responded asks about weapons not rounds in them. Maybe the OP meant to ask about the rounds that different guns fire, but that's not what he asked about. He asked about the weapons, the gun itself
How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?
So I ask you, why was it not obvious to you that the question asked asks about the gun and not about the bullets the gun fires? Even the article the OP-er cites opens, "Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings." What about that makes you think the type of rounds fired are the central theme of the article and thus the central theme of the OP?
Fair enough, my above post addresses why the rifle itself needs to be seen in context with the ammo it uses. And yes most people probably don't know the difference in the ammo, which is THE difference. The image posted should be sufficient to illuminate why the ammo, and thus the rifle that uses that ammo, is a problem. I could be clearer so I'll take responsibility for that.
Here you go silly person, TWO studies, among many, that were done by the CDC and the second link was last year. So....if they aren't allowed to do the research, why are they publishing the studies they are doing?
First of all, I'm not a silly person and as a moderator, you should know better than to asperge members.
Second,
- The study titled "Elevated Rates of Urban Firearm Violence and Opportunities for Prevention—Wilmington, Delaware" is ostensibly a CDC study; however, it does not reflect the views and findings of the CDC. How do we know that? From the disclaimer at the bottom of the cover page: "The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." In other words, the CDC is not willing to stand behind the findings of the study, so while it's personnel did conduct the study, and the CDC seem to have funded the study, it's not accurate to say that the study provides the CDC's conclusions on the causes of gun violence.
You will recall that my statement with which you take exception is, "the largest source of funding that is available for researching what causes gun violence has been prohibited from being used to perform research into what causes gun violence." I haven't yet read the study you linked, so I don't know whether it addresses the causes of gun violence in general, but I suspect from the title that it limits whatever it addresses to Delaware.- The study titled "PRIORITIES FOR RESEARCH TO REDUCE THE THREAT OF FIREARM-RELATED VIOLENCE" is just plain and simple not a CDC published study. The cover of the thing says the document was authored/sanctioned/commissioned by the Institute of Medicine and National Research Council of the National Academies and published by the THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS. This paper contains a disclaimer very similar to that found on the cover page of the study noted above: "The views presented in this publication are those of the editors and attributing authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations or agencies that provided support for this project."
You will recall that my statement with which you take exception is, "the largest source of funding that is available for researching what causes gun violence has been prohibited from being used to perform research into what causes gun violence." I haven't yet read the study you linked, so I don't know whether it addresses the causes of gun violence in general, but I suspect from the title that it addresses the lines of critical inquiry that need to be explored/conducted to determine the causes of gun-related violence. That is not the same thing as researching the cause of gun violence or providing funding into the research about the cause of gun violence.
Remember that the regulation of ammunition is entitled to Constitutional protections:Used a gun similar to those used in recent mass shootings.
He killed FIVE police officers.
How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?
Reagan's rolling in his grave.
NEW YORK (WABC) -- Details are emerging about the weapon used to carry out the deadly ambush on police officers in Dallas, and while not confirmed, it is believed that the sniper used what is increasingly the weapon of choice in mass shootings.
"We will find that it was a military-style assault weapon with a large capacity magazine on it," Citizens Crime Commission president Richard Aborn said. "And this happens over and over and over again."
Last month, a military-style rifle was used by the gunman who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub. And last December, a husband and wife terrorist team killed 14 using a similar semi-automatic rifle. Adam Lanza used a military-type rifle in 2012 to kill 26 students and teachers at a school in Newtown Connecticut, and a similar AR-15-type military rifle was used to kill 12 people earlier that year in a Colorado movie theater.
"The AR-15 Assault weapon is the preferred weapon of these mass killers," former NYPD sergeant and FBI special agent Manuel Gomez said.
Gomez says that until Congress reinstates the ban on these military-style weapons, they will continue to be used in mass shootings because of their killing efficiency.
"You can shoot 50, 60, up to 100 rounds in one minute," he said. "And each round designed to enter the body and tear that piece that it entered apart."
A report by New York's Citizen Crime Commission concluded that after Congress lifted the ban on these military-style rifles in 2004, the number of people killed by semi-automatic, high-capacity guns tripled. Aborn said the Dallas police killings adds to their death toll.
If the shooter had used an assault rifle Reagan and Brady would have died almost instantly.
Though I understand why you said that, the more likely reality is that were Hinkley to have used a rifle of pretty much any sort and at the same range in which he used his handgun, he probably wouldn't have had an opportunity to shoot Reagan or Brady. After all, he began shooting from just 10 feet away from the President. I think the Secret Service would have noticed him carrying a rifle long before he managed to fire it and either confiscated it or removed Hinkley from the scene.
Refrain, if you would, from posting the obvious. NO KIDDING.
The comment was about the rounds used, I'm not sure why that wouldn't be obvious but I guess not everyone knows the difference between a pistol round and what type ammo is used in an assault weapon. Hinkley used a very cheap $50 .22 pistol. The rounds were explosive rounds but the one that hit Reagan didn't explode. They think the one that hit Brady in the head did explode, but it was a .22 so even a direct hit in the head didn't kill him.
Velocity of a .22 long rifle about 1,200ft/sec
Velocity of a .223 round from an AR-15 about 3,200ft/sec
Nearly three times the velocity. Damage done to tissue corresponds to the energy contained in the projectile when it enters tissue. Brady's head would have likely exploded and Reagan wouldn't have made it to the hospital.
No one hit by Hinkley died from ten feet away because the gun he used fired the cartridge on the left. A .22 long rifle or similar, even an explosive round didn't kill Brady. The shooter in Dallas used a weapon that fired something similar to the cartridge on the right. From moderate distance on moving targets and he killed 5 people very rapidly.
This is the problem with assault rifles, it isn't the rifle, it is the ammo it uses. Pass a law so that all assault rifles can only physically use the cartridge on the left and there is no need to ban these weapons. They then become the same as an 1880's .22 rifle.
What’s amusing is many conservatives have come to loath the Heller ruling, and its reaffirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ and that government may indeed place reasonable restrictions on that right.The conservatives here are clueless about firearms. As with most subjects you cannot have a discussion WITH them as they're fake narrative in their mind cannot be penetrated with fact. Some of them believe in a magic talking snake so what follows that should come as no surprise.
Used a gun similar to those used in recent mass shootings.
He killed FIVE police officers.
How many of these weapons wouldn't be in circulation if the assault weapons ban hadn't been allowed to expire twenty years ago?
Reagan's rolling in his grave.
There are 8 million of these rifles in private hands right now.....do you know how many people have been killed by these rifles.....wanna guess?
in 34 years 154 people have been murdered with these rifles....that's right....34 years....
Care to guess how many people have been killed by knives.....
in 2014 1,567 people were murdered by knives...and every year over 1,500 people are killed by knives over 6 times more people than are killed by all types of rifle.......
So......tell me again how bad these rifles are.....
The shooter also had military training, so next up the Loons will start labeling all veterans as a terror threat....oops, they already did.
Homeland Security on guard for ‘right-wing extremists’
WND? lol...what happened to you Bodie?
However, good. Right wing extremists are in this country in greater numbers than ISIS and are a far greater threat.
Clearly, your powers of observation are rather faulty.
I am not bodecea. She is my evil bearded twin from the anti-matter universe.
I was here first.
Yeah.....one or the both of you should change your names....I made that mistake last week or so........it is a shame too.......you don't deserve to be confused with that .......person.....
The conservatives here are clueless about firearms. As with most subjects you cannot have a discussion WITH them as the fake narrative in their mind cannot be penetrated with fact. Some of them believe in a magic talking snake so what follows that should come as no surprise.
There are 8 million of these rifles in private hands right now.....do you know how many people have been killed by these rifles.....wanna guess?
in 34 years 154 people have been murdered with these rifles....that's right....34 years....
Care to guess how many people have been killed by knives.....
in 2014 1,567 people were murdered by knives...and every year over 1,500 people are killed by knives over 6 times more people than are killed by all types of rifle.......
So......tell me again how bad these rifles are.....
The shooter also had military training, so next up the Loons will start labeling all veterans as a terror threat....oops, they already did.
Homeland Security on guard for ‘right-wing extremists’
WND? lol...what happened to you Bodie?
However, good. Right wing extremists are in this country in greater numbers than ISIS and are a far greater threat.
Clearly, your powers of observation are rather faulty.
I am not bodecea. She is my evil bearded twin from the anti-matter universe.
I was here first.
Yeah.....one or the both of you should change your names....I made that mistake last week or so........it is a shame too.......you don't deserve to be confused with that .......person.....
I was here first.
And really, anyone paying attention should easily be able to tell us apart.
What’s amusing is many conservatives have come to loath the Heller ruling, and its reaffirmation of the fact that the Second Amendment right is not ‘unlimited,’ and that government may indeed place reasonable restrictions on that right.The conservatives here are clueless about firearms. As with most subjects you cannot have a discussion WITH them as they're fake narrative in their mind cannot be penetrated with fact. Some of them believe in a magic talking snake so what follows that should come as no surprise.
The conservatives here are clueless about firearms. As with most subjects you cannot have a discussion WITH them as the fake narrative in their mind cannot be penetrated with fact. Some of them believe in a magic talking snake so what follows that should come as no surprise.
You are the one saying a 5.56 is deadlier than a .357 at close range......not me........
......
.....This is the problem with assault rifles, it isn't the rifle, it is the ammo it uses. Pass a law so that all assault rifles can only physically use the cartridge on the left and there is no need to ban these weapons. They then become the same as an 1880's .22 rifle.
The conservatives here are clueless about firearms. As with most subjects you cannot have a discussion WITH them as the fake narrative in their mind cannot be penetrated with fact. Some of them believe in a magic talking snake so what follows that should come as no surprise.
Not exactly statutory nor logical.
But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
You are going to find that not everybody agrees with you however.
I would venture to guess that you are in a rather small minority -- certainly less than 45% overall -- probably less than that.
55% are going to want the AR's and AK's off the market.
......
.....This is the problem with assault rifles, it isn't the rifle, it is the ammo it uses. Pass a law so that all assault rifles can only physically use the cartridge on the left and there is no need to ban these weapons. They then become the same as an 1880's .22 rifle.
Wow!!!!! That's perceptive! Ban the .223 ammo and make all those guys who own the 'supposed' assault firearms use .22 ammo instead... Wait a second..... Do you really think that .22 ammo is going to work in a the 'supposed' assault firearm you're complaining about? I don't think so. Nope not at all! Last time I checked if the right type of ammo isn't available then the firearm is useless. This is pretty much true for any type of firearm.
The conservatives here are clueless about firearms. As with most subjects you cannot have a discussion WITH them as the fake narrative in their mind cannot be penetrated with fact. Some of them believe in a magic talking snake so what follows that should come as no surprise.
I think this statement should have 'conservatives' replaced with 'supposedly enlightened progressive liberals' considering your other comment about ammo.
*****CHUCKLE*****
......
.....This is the problem with assault rifles, it isn't the rifle, it is the ammo it uses. Pass a law so that all assault rifles can only physically use the cartridge on the left and there is no need to ban these weapons. They then become the same as an 1880's .22 rifle.
Wow!!!!! That's perceptive! Ban the .223 ammo and make all those guys who own the 'supposed' assault firearms use .22 ammo instead... Wait a second..... Do you really think that .22 ammo is going to work in a the 'supposed' assault firearm you're complaining about? I don't think so. Nope not at all! Last time I checked if the right type of ammo isn't available then the firearm is useless. This is pretty much true for any type of firearm.
The conservatives here are clueless about firearms. As with most subjects you cannot have a discussion WITH them as the fake narrative in their mind cannot be penetrated with fact. Some of them believe in a magic talking snake so what follows that should come as no surprise.
I think this statement should have 'conservatives' replaced with 'supposedly enlightened progressive liberals' considering your other comment about ammo.
*****CHUCKLE*****
Another that can't read. Try again, read the post, and come back with something other than misinformed hyperbole based on misreading what someone else said.
How is it stopped when studies like this have continued to be done...the only thing the CDC is prohibited from doing is biased research.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/25/us/cdc-gun-violence-wilmington.html?_r=0
When epidemiologists from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention came to this city, they were not here to track an outbreak of meningitis or study the effectiveness of a particular vaccine.
They were here to examine gun violence.
This city of about 70,000 had a 45 percent jump in shootings from 2011 to 2013, and the violence has remained stubbornly high; 25 shooting deaths have been reported this year, slightly more than last year, according to the mayor’s office
.-------
The final report, which has been submitted to the state, reached a conclusion that many here said they already knew: that there are certain patterns in the lives of many who commit gun violence.
He could have used any rifle with a scope and have killed just as many peopleThere are 8 million of these rifles in private hands right now.....do you know how many people have been killed by these rifles.....wanna guess?
in 34 years 154 people have been murdered with these rifles....that's right....34 years....
Care to guess how many people have been killed by knives.....
in 2014 1,567 people were murdered by knives...and every year over 1,500 people are killed by knives over 6 times more people than are killed by all types of rifle.......
So......tell me again how bad these rifles are.....
Unfortunately that number is going up rather fast.
And nobody has ever used a knife to kill 5 cops out of 12 before.
At the state and local level the voters and their legislators will need to decide if the AR's and the AK's are out of proportion with their killing power for civilian use. That decision has already been made for the submachine guns and the sawed off shotguns. Only question is whether cities and states will decide the same thing ultimately for the AR's and AK's and their many clones.
The problem is that the genie is already out of the bottle. And the genie is not going back in.
Unless Hillary gets a supermajority Senate and control over the House there will be no Federal action on this just as there was no Federal action the past 8 years and also not since Billy -- the other Clinton -- was POTUS back in 1992-2000, pre-Monica.
Doesn't matter as I have told you idiots over and over againNot exactly statutory nor logical.They are not over powered for civilian use...the cops have them....and whatever the cops have we get...that is as simple a rule as we need.
But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
You are going to find that not everybody agrees with you however.
I would venture to guess that you are in a rather small minority -- certainly less than 45% overall -- probably less than that.
55% are going to want the AR's and AK's off the market.
LHO was using a single shot rifleNo you can't. Not even Lee Harvey Oswald could do that, and he is the undisputed champion of operating a bolt action Mannlicker Carcano. You may think you are some Lee Harvey Oswald yourself but you are not.I can do the same thing with a semi auto deer rifle.
In fact I could kill more with the deer rifle.
Any gun is a force multiplierStraw man AND red herring.Less than two percent of gun crimes are committed with long guns, an even smaller percentage by AR platform rifles.
To ‘ban’ such firearms will have little effect on overall gun crime deaths, if any effect at all.
Consequently, advocating for a ‘new’ AWB is unwarranted.
The issue with the assault style guns is force multiplication not number of deaths per year.
