Gun Control - What's the Problem?

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,523
Reaction score
700
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
I'm a gun owner, most of my friends are gun owners, but i'm confused... What is the problem that most conservatives have with President Obama's Gun Control ideas? I hear the speeches, read the plans, watched the town hall and listen to commentary on both sides until my ears bleed and I still don't understand the conservative position.

Everything that the President has suggested makes sense to me. I don't feel threatened about losing my guns, and I don't think that a responsible citizen's ability to buy a gun is being threatened. I think anything that helps keep guns out of the wrong hands is a good idea, it will save lives! The only point I hear from conservatives on why they object is that they think there is a hidden agenda by the Left to take away all guns. That is ridiculous, paranoid and unrealistic, there must be something more...

Why does the pro-gun base object to background checks and regulations that will make it harder for criminals or irresponsible individuals to own a gun? I just don't understand the argument. Please enlighten me.
First, what purpose do you believe will be served by making it more difficult for criminals and crazies to buy guns? Do you really think being unable to buy a gun for a reasonable price at a legal gun store will stop someone, anyone, who wants a gun from getting one?

Have you ever heard of Prohibition? How about the current War On Drugs? This has been going on at near police-state intensity for more than three decades and the result has been drugs are more available today than they were when this counterproductive folly was started -- and they cost less.

We who oppose any further nibbling away at the Second Amendment are well aware that guns cannot be controlled anymore than drugs can. We know that nothing can come of this endless attempt to disarm us other than further inconvenience to legitimate gun owners. Because if the background check idea is enacted it's not going to end there. Little by little these anti-gun opportunists, most of whom know nothing about guns, are afraid of them, and are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances, won't stop until your Second Amendment rights are limited to keeping a single-shot .22 rifle chambered for short, and bearing it to a federally supervised range.

Guns are in this Nation's DNA. Nothing short of totalitarian, door-busting, full-bore police-state methods will put an end to the occasional shooting, mass-shooting, and armed stand-off. So let's put an end to this creeping prohibition before it reaches that level.

The only gun law I approve of is a comprehensive training requirement and competence test for anyone who wishes to own a gun or guns -- and intensified training for anyone who wishes to carry -- open or concealed.

(Pardon the excessive boldface. It is the result of a quirk I can't control.)
The gun culture in the US did not happen overnight. It took over two hundred years to develop to the point it is today. It can't be wipe out by just passing a law. Over time, say a century or so, gun ownership will be controlled to a point where guns can be kept out of the hands of criminals. I suspect technology will play a large part.
I think you have this backwards,
Guns used to be ubiquitous.
That is because there were wild animals, few grocery stores, no police, no telephones, and the village, state, and federal government relied on armed populations for everything.

Guns are slowly dwindling, but that is a bad thing.
That is because governments are getting more and more corrupt.
And you are totally wrong about technology.
Technology, like 3D metal printers, make it trivial for criminals to be armed.
And it can only get worse in the future.
 

Ray From Cleveland

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2015
Messages
59,011
Reaction score
9,789
Points
2,140
No, but I'm supporting enough people otherwise capable of working that do not as it is. We don't need to add more on the role. When you make something legal that was previously illegal, more people will participate. So making druggies that were once otherwise good working people will only create more of a problem.
Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.
In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.
Legal pot should be MUCH cheaper than illegal pot smuggled in.
No one on pot wants to drive or do anything that complicated, so it should not be a problem.
Pot use should reduce the dangerous opioid use.
Pot has different effects on different people. When I smoked pot, all I wanted to do was put on some headphones and listen to music. Others got high and were running all over the place throwing a football around.

My late neighbor was like that. She was stickler about her yard. On the weekends during the summer, she would wake up at 5:30 am and work on that yard until sundown. She was an avid pot smoker; from morning until night. She died of lung cancer, but until she got sick, she had ten times more energy than I ever did.
Pot interferes with the connections in the synapses, si pretty much can not make you more active. It is best described as a temporary amnesia drug. If your neighbor was acting speedy, she likely was doing speed, and just said pot because it sounded less overt.
Pot is not that much different than alcohol where it affects people in different ways. Some people get drunk and like to argue. Some like to get into fist fights. Others just drink into a near coma and laugh at everything.

I've seen it with my own eyes. In fact being around other people smoking pot, I was the most inactive one. Others were more active when smoking because it does something to relieve their coyness. You simply cannot stereotype users of nearly any kind of mind altering substance.
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
2,399
Points
290
Something like 3% of the population own HALF the fucking guns in the country.

And to keep those gun nuts happy we have to live with mass shootings every week or two?
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,523
Reaction score
700
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.
In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.
If you want to diminish drug use, you have to reduce the profits so there are fewer people selling it. And that means legalization, so you can under cut the black market prices.
That would never happen because no state will go that route unless they get a huge cut like in pot states. You are not going to diminish drug usage by making it legal. You will only increase the usage.
States that legalize, like CO, get huge profits from sales tax.
You are going to decrease usage when you make it legal, because then there no longer will be any anger or rebellion motivation. Government will gain back some credibility. People extremely resent drug prohibitions.
People don't use drugs out of anger or rebellion. They use drugs because they got hooked after taking prescription drugs, peer pressure where they didn't think much of it at the time, or recreational use to feel good, but not anger or rebellion.

Drugs have been around my entire life, and in fact, they considered my generation as the drug generation. Yet in spite of the laws that are no different today than back then, we have a huge problem with OD deaths and addiction. It's the ready availableness of the drugs that is the problem. You can't get hooked on something you have no access to.
Sure they do.
The government, your job, the news, etc., get you all upset, so you want pot to help you forget.
One does not smoke pot to get anger or rebellion, but to forget about anger, rebellion, frustration, etc.
But other drugs are entirely different, and far more dangerous.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,523
Reaction score
700
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Actually the idea is that when drugs are illegal, they cost more, so then there is more profit, and more people trying to make that profit. And with more people pushing them, more people will do them. Once drugs are legalized, you will find that use and over use to the point of abuse, goes way down.

But there really have never been much in the way of social services. Unemployment is money you pay in, and when it runs out, you don't get any more. A single woman with a child can get ADC, but that is about it. You have to be really poor to qualify for SNAP, but that is not free, and you have to pay around half in order to buy the food stamps.
In states where pot is legal, they still have a problem with illegal pot. The sellers simply undercut the prices of the state. Pot usage is not down in those states either, it's up particularly among high school kids. Plus the police have a bigger problem with OVI.

However pot is different in that addiction is a fraction of opioid products. We don't need kids getting this stuff and being hooked until they kill themselves.
Legal pot should be MUCH cheaper than illegal pot smuggled in.
No one on pot wants to drive or do anything that complicated, so it should not be a problem.
Pot use should reduce the dangerous opioid use.
Pot has different effects on different people. When I smoked pot, all I wanted to do was put on some headphones and listen to music. Others got high and were running all over the place throwing a football around.

My late neighbor was like that. She was stickler about her yard. On the weekends during the summer, she would wake up at 5:30 am and work on that yard until sundown. She was an avid pot smoker; from morning until night. She died of lung cancer, but until she got sick, she had ten times more energy than I ever did.
Pot interferes with the connections in the synapses, si pretty much can not make you more active. It is best described as a temporary amnesia drug. If your neighbor was acting speedy, she likely was doing speed, and just said pot because it sounded less overt.
Pot is not that much different than alcohol where it affects people in different ways. Some people get drunk and like to argue. Some like to get into fist fights. Others just drink into a near coma and laugh at everything.

I've seen it with my own eyes. In fact being around other people smoking pot, I was the most inactive one. Others were more active when smoking because it does something to relieve their coyness. You simply cannot stereotype users of nearly any kind of mind altering substance.
Well I can only use what I have seen, and I have never seen pot smokers become active or hostile.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,523
Reaction score
700
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Something like 3% of the population own HALF the fucking guns in the country.

And to keep those gun nuts happy we have to live with mass shootings every week or two?
That is totally inaccurate.
All homes used to be armed in the past, and still somewhere between 40 and 35% still are armed.
And everyone obviously should be armed.
Do you really think police are ever going to get to you in time to prevent you from becoming a victim?
Mass shootings are irrelevant and actually are suicides usually.
There are only a hundred or so deaths a year from mass shootings.
The reality is there are about 8,000 murders a year from crimes, and about 90% of those are related to the War on Drugs,
So if you were really concerned about reducing deaths, you would want to end the war on drugs.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,523
Reaction score
700
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
What is the alternative, other than establishing the equivalent of the KGB, Savik, Stazi, Gestapo, kapos, etc., here in the US?
We can NEVER rely on police for safety.
They will always have too long of a response time, and they themselves are too corrupt and trigger happy.
I much prefer everyone defend themselves.
I trust my neighbors.
I do not trust the police or the thieves in Congress.
If the police or Congress were trustworthy, there would be no War on Drugs.
Let's admit to some things first.

You are NEVER going to stop violent killings.
You are never going to stop mass shootings

Now that we have agreed to those two, let's go one step further. Violent killings will happen with or without guns. No change to that.

But there is something we can do for mass shootings (4 or more dead). We can limit the tools required to go for the record. They busted another one that was going for the record yesterday. He had the AR, the high capacity mags and the plan. He also had a big mouth. His Girl Friend turned him in. Now, what can we do to take away the tools from this type of situation. And please, more guns are not the answer. A bunch of people firing guns in a crowd only means a lot of collateral damage and confusion when the cops get there. One Good Guy with a Gun was already shot by a cop when he tried to stop a shooting.

So if we can't stop the mass shootings, we minimize the body count. That means change the tools available to the shooter. make it harder to get that AR. Make it nearly impossible to get that 30, 50 and 100 round mag. That's a good start. The Heller unwritten rule seems to be 15 but there isn't a whole lot of difference between 15 and 20 rounds. But there is between 15 and 50. Get the AR off the open streets. If someone is walking down the street with an AR or an AK a ton of bells should be going off and cops should be responding in Swat gear. There is no reason to be carrying an AR to go Grocery Shopping unless you are trying to get the best deal on your Cantaloupe. And do the universal background checks as well as the Red Flags. Doing these in one area and not the other areas means a person just jumps the state line, buys whatever the hell they want and then jumps back across the line again. AT least make getting the stuff more a sport than so easy.

You don't have to confiscate guns to minimize chances and body counts. Just make some simple changes and wait it out. The change won't happen over night but it will happen. Criminals hate it when they have to pay extra to get what they used to get so cheap.
Actually we tried something very similar, for a period of about ten years. When all the results were in, it was proven to have very little effect, so it was not renewed again.

Even if outlawing AR's and AK's reduced the body count (which it wouldn't) then would we be satisfied if only 15 people were killed instead of 17 in a mass murder?
Case in point. The easy availability of weapons/high capacity mags. The California Former Marine had a skill set far beyond any shooter that has ever been encountered in a mass shooter. One day, he snapped. He grabbed the only style of weapon available to him under California law, the semi auto handgun. He goes to the club. Using that, he kills 12 people including killing an armed cop that was partially concealed who was trying to stop him, wounds his partner who drags his mortally wounded partner out of the building. It wasn't until a Swat Team arrived that he could be contained and they were highly trained and had ARs. They didn't take him out, he killed himself. Body count 13. Potential body count (not counting cops) could have been as high as 65 if he had an AR and 3 30 round mags. His skill set, he could have easily obtained that. And he also could have taken out a lot of cops in the process before they bagged him. Possible body count? Over 70. New Record. Instead, he had to settle for a paltry 12 before he killed himself.

Those restriction (not bans) only works when all areas have them. They only work when you can't just jump across a line and get around them. They only work when they are enforced. They only work after X amount of time passes. And I have seen them work her as well where we have had one 17 year old try and make it into a middle school with his daddy's AR-15 and 4 30 round mags. He didn't make it. The Community stopped him in the 1000 yd area before he could get into the school. But the School went into a 2 hour lockdown at the same time. It's not just the laws, it's also the community training and involvement.

But don't let a little bit of facts get in the way or your NRA checklist.
If I use my semi-auto 9mm with a 15 round clip and you use an AR, and we both start firing as fast as we can, both our magazines will empty out at the same time. In fact I can probably change the magazine on my gun faster than you could on yours.

The type of gun is irrelevant, the person is not. Until we can get rid of this mentality that guns kill all on their own, we will never be able to address this problem seriously.
You are one half step away from a break through that I noted myself. Cultism. It's not just the one side yelling a screaming about how dangerous the AR is, it's also the other side that has taken owning the AR to cult status. In a home defense situation, the semi auto or even the wheel gun is far superior to the full sized AR. Yet there are those that make the claim that that is why they own the AR. But in a battle field situation that handgun is only worth anything as a very last resort while the AR will be the first resort. I consider a mass shooting on the same scale as a Battle Field and the same weapons apply. To claim the AR is only a hunting rifle because it can shoot a ground hog and that is the only reason you have it is a lie. There are much better ground hot rifles than the AR by far. To say you have it to scare the living hell out of those around you, now you are getting somewhere. Break the Cult and the AR goes out of vogue very quickly because as a sport gun, it's way down on the list for anything. As a home defense weapon, it's way down on the list as well. It is designed for one thing and one thing only and that is for the Battle Field and THAT it's better than any crumby sport rifle out there.
You sound like an idiot.
People buy an AR because it is so common and cheap.
But they are actually awful.
I don't own one.
I got an AK clone for far less, and there are lots of far better choices.
And an AR is NOT at all a "battle rifle" like you claim.
A battle rifle is full auto, and the AR is not at all.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,523
Reaction score
700
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
I doubt that, but even if it did, you can't replace a human life at any cost.
Agreed. That’s even a more potent point in the gun debate as people take other people’s lives with guns and doing drugs is a personal choice
The difference is that without a gun, people will continue to kill each other. Just look at what's going on in London.
True but the body count is much, much lower.
No evidence to support that. Like I said, two of any semi-automatic weapons can be emptied out at the same time.
What evidence do you need? Isn't the reality enough? A Knife, you have to be closer. A Club, you have to be closer. No, you don't have to reload but you have to be much, much closer. And the body count is generally lower. To claim otherwise is. well......insane.
Wrong again.
The point of a knife or piece of pipe is that it is quiet.
No one races to find out what all the noise was, or calls the police.
So then you can keep doing, it day after day.
Firearms have only been around for about 500 years, and clearly the largest loss of life has always been from edged weapons.
Distance is totally irrelevant. It is noise that make firearms poor for pure total body count.
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
2,399
Points
290
Mass shootings are irrelevant and actually are suicides usually.
Mass shootings generally ARE suicides so they're absolutely not irrelevant.

Nor are they irrelevant to the families and friends of those suicide victims
 

Lesh

Gold Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2016
Messages
17,002
Reaction score
2,399
Points
290
And an AR is NOT at all a "battle rifle" like you claim.
A battle rifle is full auto, and the AR is not at all.
Funny that the military discourages their use in full

It's the same damn gun
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,523
Reaction score
700
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
The difference is that without a gun, people will continue to kill each other. Just look at what's going on in London.
True but the body count is much, much lower.
No evidence to support that. Like I said, two of any semi-automatic weapons can be emptied out at the same time.
What evidence do you need? Isn't the reality enough? A Knife, you have to be closer. A Club, you have to be closer. No, you don't have to reload but you have to be much, much closer. And the body count is generally lower. To claim otherwise is. well......insane.
To claim that guns or specific types of guns are responsible for murders is even more insane. Let me remind you that the two largest mass killings in our time had not one gun involved. One was done with box cutters (not even a real knife) and the other with a truck and fertilizer.

People focus on mass murders because they are sensationalized by the media. But more people die in Chicago on a holiday weekend than most of the mass murders in this country, and yes, even more are injured as well.

But again I'll ask this question since you didn't answer it the last time: If we had a mass murder with a pistol that killed 20 people, would you be satisfied with that believing a rifle would have killed 22?
Those two you bring up won't happen again in the United States. You want to try and take over an airliner with a box cutter you are going to have two things against you. The Crew is armed and the door is reinforced. Your using an outdated example.

Now about the Fertiizer and the Van. You want to try and get a Van? Anyone can do that. Now, try and get the few hundred pounds of Nitrogen Firtilizer and that will throw a ton of read flags. And accumulating the amount of Diesel to go with it, another set of flags go off. Right after these new policies were enacted, there were still idiots trying to do the same thing. And not one accomplished it. This is America, this isn't France. Another bad example by you.

Here is the answer you keep asking and I keep answering. Just not with the answer you like to hear. If you can kill with a handgun, 22 people, then the security really screwed up. Sorry but that just won't happen anymore. The new record after the new methods have been implements is now 12 plus the shooter and that was done by a former Marine with some crazy combat skill sets. You now have about 90 seconds at the most. The Schools take measures to keep the body count down. Most Cities have a rapid response team that will be there in under a minute. The last shooter got taken down in 45 seconds. This isn't 1997 anymore.

Using a normal Rifle, like a bolt or even something like a Mini-14, you still can't reload fast enough. Yah, I know, all you rexall rangers will claim you can. But there is only one Rifle designed specifically to reload faster than any other rifle in Civilian Hands and that is the AR. Using the AR, in 45 seconds, you can take out as many as 60 people and in 90 seconds, you can take out up to 120. This is why most states are constantly on the lookout for those people of all ages that make the brag or threats of going for the record or doing a mass shooting. Just saying it or typing it on line is a Felony.






Just how many of these would have been carried out. And the weapon of choice for all but the last one (we don't know the weapon mom has) was all the AR-15 which is very capable of doing the mass shootings even with the Rapid Response Teams available.

Now, I know you don't like the answer but I did answer your question. These reports and arrests are almost daily. It's gotten so common place that it doesn't make the news that much because it's almost common place.
You are an idiot.
Buying hundreds of pounds of fertilizer will NEVER throw a red flag.
That is because EVERYONE buys hundreds of pounds of fertilizer at a time.
Farmers buy whole truckloads at a time.
And a Ruger Mini-14 is a vastly superior killing machine than an AR.
That is why I bought one instead of an AR.
You clearly do not know at all what you are talking about.
 

MikeK

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 11, 2010
Messages
15,924
Reaction score
2,471
Points
290
Location
Brick, New Jersey
Something like 3% of the population own HALF the fucking guns in the country.

And to keep those gun nuts happy we have to live with mass shootings every week or two?
You could say something similar about cars. If restrictions were imposed on cars based on necessity of use and possession there would be a substantial reduction in the amount of death, injury, and property destruction caused by the automobile.

As for the frequency of mass shootings, the cause is not too many guns but too few. The runaway practice of restricting gun possession began in the twenties and the resulting absence of law-abiding armed citizens is the very reason for the vast majority of gun crime, including mass shootings. While there definitely needs to be some level of restriction where guns are concerned, too much restriction is definitely responsible for most gun crime and misuse.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,523
Reaction score
700
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Mass shootings are irrelevant and actually are suicides usually.
Mass shootings generally ARE suicides so they're absolutely not irrelevant.

Nor are they irrelevant to the families and friends of those suicide victims
That is absurd because anyone committing a suicide, mass murder or not, should have been detected and treated for an obvious mental health problem.
To try to ignore suicidal people and instead try to prevent every single person from being able to harm anyone else, is literally insane.
It could never be done, and it obviously never should be because that would more than double the current crime rate, as no one would be able to prevent crimes any more.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
21,719
Reaction score
4,517
Points
290
Location
Tejas
Something like 3% of the population own HALF the fucking guns in the country.

And to keep those gun nuts happy we have to live with mass shootings every week or two?
That is totally inaccurate.

Ohh?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ults-own-half-of-americas-guns/?noredirect=on
Just 3 percent of American adults own half of the nation's firearms, according to the results of a Harvard-Northeastern survey of 4,000 gun owners.
:laughing0301:

It
must be hard work being this gullible.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
21,719
Reaction score
4,517
Points
290
Location
Tejas
Mass shootings are irrelevant and actually are suicides usually.
Mass shootings generally ARE suicides so they're absolutely not irrelevant.

Nor are they irrelevant to the families and friends of those suicide victims
Wouldn't you rather have your loved ones end it quickly with a bullet to the brain than to do something painful that causes suffering. Either way, it was probably a good decision, so why not make it easy to do it quickly with a gun?

.

.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,523
Reaction score
700
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Something like 3% of the population own HALF the fucking guns in the country.

And to keep those gun nuts happy we have to live with mass shootings every week or two?
That is totally inaccurate.

Ohh?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ults-own-half-of-americas-guns/?noredirect=on
Jesus, don't you know that the Washington Post was bought by the Moonies and it totally worthless?
There are no surveys that can b
The difference is that without a gun, people will continue to kill each other. Just look at what's going on in London.
True but the body count is much, much lower.
No evidence to support that. Like I said, two of any semi-automatic weapons can be emptied out at the same time.
What evidence do you need? Isn't the reality enough? A Knife, you have to be closer. A Club, you have to be closer. No, you don't have to reload but you have to be much, much closer. And the body count is generally lower. To claim otherwise is. well......insane.
To claim that guns or specific types of guns are responsible for murders is even more insane. Let me remind you that the two largest mass killings in our time had not one gun involved. One was done with box cutters (not even a real knife) and the other with a truck and fertilizer.

People focus on mass murders because they are sensationalized by the media. But more people die in Chicago on a holiday weekend than most of the mass murders in this country, and yes, even more are injured as well.

But again I'll ask this question since you didn't answer it the last time: If we had a mass murder with a pistol that killed 20 people, would you be satisfied with that believing a rifle would have killed 22?
Those two you bring up won't happen again in the United States. You want to try and take over an airliner with a box cutter you are going to have two things against you. The Crew is armed and the door is reinforced. Your using an outdated example.

Now about the Fertiizer and the Van. You want to try and get a Van? Anyone can do that. Now, try and get the few hundred pounds of Nitrogen Firtilizer and that will throw a ton of read flags. And accumulating the amount of Diesel to go with it, another set of flags go off. Right after these new policies were enacted, there were still idiots trying to do the same thing. And not one accomplished it. This is America, this isn't France. Another bad example by you.

Here is the answer you keep asking and I keep answering. Just not with the answer you like to hear. If you can kill with a handgun, 22 people, then the security really screwed up. Sorry but that just won't happen anymore. The new record after the new methods have been implements is now 12 plus the shooter and that was done by a former Marine with some crazy combat skill sets. You now have about 90 seconds at the most. The Schools take measures to keep the body count down. Most Cities have a rapid response team that will be there in under a minute. The last shooter got taken down in 45 seconds. This isn't 1997 anymore.

Using a normal Rifle, like a bolt or even something like a Mini-14, you still can't reload fast enough. Yah, I know, all you rexall rangers will claim you can. But there is only one Rifle designed specifically to reload faster than any other rifle in Civilian Hands and that is the AR. Using the AR, in 45 seconds, you can take out as many as 60 people and in 90 seconds, you can take out up to 120. This is why most states are constantly on the lookout for those people of all ages that make the brag or threats of going for the record or doing a mass shooting. Just saying it or typing it on line is a Felony.






Just how many of these would have been carried out. And the weapon of choice for all but the last one (we don't know the weapon mom has) was all the AR-15 which is very capable of doing the mass shootings even with the Rapid Response Teams available.

Now, I know you don't like the answer but I did answer your question. These reports and arrests are almost daily. It's gotten so common place that it doesn't make the news that much because it's almost common place.
I forgot to respond to the idiotic claim that police have a fact response time these days.
The 90 seconds was an accident where the police happened to already be passing by.
The reality is a rapid response team is still averaging over 15 minutes.
For example, with Paddock on Las Vegas, it took, over 12 minutes for the police to arrive.
 

Rigby5

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2017
Messages
5,523
Reaction score
700
Points
170
Location
New Mexico
Something like 3% of the population own HALF the fucking guns in the country.

And to keep those gun nuts happy we have to live with mass shootings every week or two?
That is totally inaccurate.

Ohh?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ults-own-half-of-americas-guns/?noredirect=on
Just 3 percent of American adults own half of the nation's firearms, according to the results of a Harvard-Northeastern survey of 4,000 gun owners.
:laughing0301:

It
must be hard work being this gullible.
The Washington Post was bought by the Moonies a decade ago, and it no source of anything.
You should know it is nearly impossible to get gun stats.
Foolish post.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
21,719
Reaction score
4,517
Points
290
Location
Tejas
Something like 3% of the population own HALF the fucking guns in the country.

And to keep those gun nuts happy we have to live with mass shootings every week or two?
That is totally inaccurate.

Ohh?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ults-own-half-of-americas-guns/?noredirect=on
Just 3 percent of American adults own half of the nation's firearms, according to the results of a Harvard-Northeastern survey of 4,000 gun owners.
:laughing0301:

It
must be hard work being this gullible.
The Washington Post was bought by the Moonies a decade ago, and it no source of anything.
You should know it is nearly impossible to get gun stats.
Foolish post.
10000 people own 17 guns or more. Everybody else has 1 or 2. That's all the study suggests, but that is total bullshit. There are way more than 250 million guns.

.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top