Zone1 There's no rational, reasoned argument for a ban on AR15s (2)

[Kilroy2]

So?
"All bearable arms".

So I never said that it wasn't. The debate is on the rationality or argument for a ban on AR15

At this point in time It is all hypothetical debate.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Sure there is.
It is suitable for every traditionally legal purpose there is for a firearm.

Sounds like you need to talk to your fellow liberal Democrats, who continue to tell us there's no need for civilians to own an AR.

Good thing I didn't do that.

Your lack of knowledge of all things firearm is legendary; your statement, above, only reinforces this.
There are few firearms better suited for self defense within the home than an AR carbine or pistol in a major pistol caliber.

And yet, liberal Democrats continue to try to ban them, and liberal Democrats continue to tell us they need to be banned.
Ironically, they prove you to be a liar, and you prove them to be liars.
Well done.

My Smith 610 is more than enough to dispatch any home invader; indeed, it’s a weapon itself absent ammunition.

Again, there's no rational, reasoned argument in support of possessing an AR 15; it’s a want, not a need.

 

[Kilroy2]

Watch the documemtary series, Active Shooter, on Showtime or Stars.... The pulse night club shooter could have done what he did with a shotgun or pistols........and from actual witness testimnoy from survivors in the club, you would see that had anyone in there had a gun, they could easily have stoped the shooter at severalnpoints in the attack.....and it is another case where the police did not go in immediately

the rifle didnt make any difference

well your making a hypostatical argument now. Yet any shooting is going to be different based on the weapon used, location, ability to escape, response time by law enforcement.

Still it goes back to the number of rounds that the weapon will hold. Which brings in how long it takes to reload and the number of rounds. What shotguns can hold 6 to 10 shells and then reload in how many seconds. compared to an AR -15 which can hold up to 30 or more if modified. Reload is in like what 3 or 4 seconds.

how would a shot gun hold up to that

how would a pistol hold up to that. Yeah reloading would take longer. The longer time and limit number of rounds that the weapon holds is a favorable factor in more people not getting shot.

 

[M14 Shooter]

My Smith 610 is more than enough to dispatch any home invader; indeed, it’s a weapon itself absent ammunition.
Again, there's no rational, reasoned argument in support of possessing an AR 15; it’s a want, not a need.

Sure there is.
-It is suitable for every traditionally legal purpose there is for a firearm.
-There are few firearms better suited for self defense within the home than an AR carbine or pistol in a major pistol caliber.
Thus:
If there is a "need" for any firearm, the AR15 fills it.

 

[2aguy]

well your making a hypostatical argument now. Yet any shooting is going to be different based on the weapon used, location, ability to escape, response time by law enforcement.

Still it goes back to the number of rounds that the weapon will hold. Which brings in how long it takes to reload and the number of rounds. What shotguns can hold 6 to 10 shells and then reload in how many seconds. compared to an AR -15 which can hold up to 30 or more if modified. Reload is in like what 3 or 4 seconds.

how would a shot gun hold up to that

how would a pistol hold up to that. Yeah reloading would take longer. The longer time and limit number of rounds that the weapon holds is a favorable factor in more people not getting shot.

And yet, in multiple, mass public shootings, shotguns murdered more people than the AR-15 rifle did.........

Since you don't know anything about guns, from your posts......you can reload the shotgun as you go, you don't even have to change a magazine to do it.......

The longer time and limit number of rounds that the weapon holds is a favorable factor in more people not getting shot.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

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

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
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.
==========

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.

-----



-----

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

-----


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

 

[M14 Shooter]

So I never said that it wasn't. The debate is on the rationality or argument for a ban on AR15

Indeed. For which there is none.

 

[Concerned American]

lately it is obviously the weapon of choice for those that want to walk into a closed environment with the intent to shoot as many as possible.

Not true. Link.

 

[Kilroy2]

Indeed. For which there is none.

They should be ban based on how many bullets a magazine can hold which can be up to 30 but that number can be increased with modifications. Reload of a magazine is about 10 seconds for the slow pokes. Large capacity magazines significantly increase a shooters ability to injure or kill a large number of people quickly because they can shoot repeatedly without the need to reload. And reload is pretty simple to start the cycle again. And yes they are semi automatic weapons. Do hunters need a this weapon to hunt because they lack the skill to do it with lesser weapons.? Understand that those damn deer's are quick. Is it good for target practice? Well if your shooting one bullet at a time then any weapon will due.

So is it because they like the trill of shooting fast and furious?

Well the problem with all good things is bad actors who use it for bad things.

Well the NRA is with you and they take contributions Wayne LaPierre and company thanks you for your contributions .

 

[Kilroy2]

Yet you compare all shotguns to an AR 15 when you should compare it to all semi automatic weapons

Statistically handguns are the most used, then rifles, and then shotguns. Rifles were used at least twice as much as shotguns.

The worst shooting was the las Vegas incident with 58 fatalities and 546 wounded which was with an AR 15. If you factor in the injuries because of the mad rush to get out of there then the wounded number goes up a little more.

Be informed instead of padding the argument by being selective.

Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2024| Statista

Handguns are the most common weapons used in mass shootings in the United States. Other types of guns used in mass shootings include rifles and shotguns.

www.statista.com

 

[Concerned American]

Large capacity magazines significantly increase a shooters ability to injure or kill a large number of people quickly

Better introduce legislation to ban rental trucks, diesel fuel and fertilizer. Those killed 168 in seconds while also maiming over 300 more. While your at it, you might look at pressure cookers and nuts and bolt as they killed 3 and maimed 17 more, also in seconds. Run along and come back when you have a point to make that doesn't have a hole the size of the Grand Canyon in it.

 

[skews13]

Every time an AR15 is used in a mass shooting - and quite often, even when they aren't - the anti-gun left, in a pre-packaged reactionary response , screams from a ban on same, complete with "information" designed to evoke an emotional response, and, they hope, gain your support for said ban.

What do they NOT tell you?

-American civilians own ~20,000,000 AR15s
-Of the 636 mas shootings in the US, 2022, 8 involved an AR15
-OF the 660 people killed in those mass shootings 54 were killed with an AR15.
[ SOURCES NOTED BELOW ]

Why do they not tell you this?

Because they know there's no sound argument for the ban they call for.
Because they know they need to prey on the emotions of the ignorant to move their ban forward
Because they know preying on the emotions of the ignorant works.
Because they don't care about mass shootings or the people in them - they just want to ban AR15s.

There's no rational, reasoned argument for a ban on AR15s; those who support said ban, in their responses, will demonstrate the truth of this statement.


20,000,000 AR15s:

Why even more Americans are arming up with AR-15 guns

What's behind the popularity of the AR-15, and what responsibility do gun makers have when their products are used in mass shootings?

www.cnbc.com

Mass shootings as defined by:
Mass Shootings in 2022 | Gun Violence Archive
Supplemental / detailed information from;
US mass shootings, 1982–2022: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

Actually there is. They are extremely dangerous weapons, that even the inventor, Eugene Stoner did not want in the hands of civilians.

The only reason this has happened is because of politicians, and it will be that same reason they will eventually be removed.

And don’t think for a second that will t happen, or due to the numbers of them it can’t happen.

 

[Concerned American]

Actually there is. They are extremely dangerous weapons, that even the inventor, Eugene Stoner did not want in the hands of civilians.

The only reason this has happened is because of politicians, and it will be that same reason they will eventually be removed.

And don’t think for a second that will t happen, or due to the numbers of them it can’t happen.

Will t? WTF, where did you go to school?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Actually there is. They are extremely dangerous weapons, that even the inventor,

The AR15 is a "bearable arm" - as such, it cannot fall under "dangerous and unusual" as per the court.

B​

The Supreme Judicial Court’s holding that stun guns may be banned as “dangerous and unusual weapons” fares no better. As the per curiam opinion recognizes, this is a conjunctive test: A weapon may not be banned unless it is both dangerous and unusual. Because the Court rejects the lower court’s conclusion that stun guns are “unusual,” it does not need to consider the lower court’s conclusion that they are also “dangerous.” See ante, at 1–2. But make no mistake—the decision below gravely erred on both grounds.

1​

As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’ ” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment. First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “ ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’ ” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’ ”). Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “ ‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’ ” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.”

CAETANO v. MASSACHUSETTS

www.law.cornell.edu

Eugene Stoner did not want in the hands of civilians.

Not the same AR15.

The only reason this has happened is because of politicians, and it will be that same reason they will eventually be removed.

Why do you think the politicians will ban and confiscate AR15s?
Why do you think will confiscate the AR15s?
Why do you the the USSC will uphold a ban on AR15s?

And don’t think for a second that will t happen, or due to the numbers of them it can’t happen.

Molon labe.

 

[2aguy]

They should be ban based on how many bullets a magazine can hold which can be up to 30 but that number can be increased with modifications. Reload of a magazine is about 10 seconds for the slow pokes. Large capacity magazines significantly increase a shooters ability to injure or kill a large number of people quickly because they can shoot repeatedly without the need to reload. And reload is pretty simple to start the cycle again. And yes they are semi automatic weapons. Do hunters need a this weapon to hunt because they lack the skill to do it with lesser weapons.? Understand that those damn deer's are quick. Is it good for target practice? Well if your shooting one bullet at a time then any weapon will due.

So is it because they like the trill of shooting fast and furious?

Well the problem with all good things is bad actors who use it for bad things.

Well the NRA is with you and they take contributions Wayne LaPierre and company thanks you for your contributions .

You don't know what you are talking about....

This is actual research showing you are wrong....

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

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

I.

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
========
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.
==========

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.

-----



-----

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

-----


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1525107116674926

 

[2aguy]

Actually there is. They are extremely dangerous weapons, that even the inventor, Eugene Stoner did not want in the hands of civilians.

The only reason this has happened is because of politicians, and it will be that same reason they will eventually be removed.

And don’t think for a second that will t happen, or due to the numbers of them it can’t happen.

You don't know what you are talking about....

The FOIA request itself was prompted from a Nov. 2017 article in The Atlantic in which the magazine, unsurprisingly to anyone familiar with its anti-gun bent, attempted to bolster a claim that “these rifles were meant for the military, not civilians.”

“Colt sent a pilot model rifle (serial no. GX4968) to the BATF for civilian sale approval on Oct. 23, 1963. It was approved on Dec. 10, 1963, and sales of the ‘Model R6000 Colt AR-15 SP1 Sporter Rifle’ began on Jan 2, 1964,” one critic of the article contended. “The M16 wasn’t issued to infantry units until 1965 (as the XM16E1), wasn’t standardized as the M16A1 until 1967, and didn’t officially replace the M14 until 1969.”

Original ATF AR-15 Classification Refutes Claim that Rifle ‘Not Meant’ for Civilians

 

[2aguy]

Yet you compare all shotguns to an AR 15 when you should compare it to all semi automatic weapons

Statistically handguns are the most used, then rifles, and then shotguns. Rifles were used at least twice as much as shotguns.

The worst shooting was the las Vegas incident with 58 fatalities and 546 wounded which was with an AR 15. If you factor in the injuries because of the mad rush to get out of there then the wounded number goes up a little more.

Be informed instead of padding the argument by being selective.

Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2024| Statista

Handguns are the most common weapons used in mass shootings in the United States. Other types of guns used in mass shootings include rifles and shotguns.

www.statista.com

And you are just a sad, uniformed human......

The only reason the Las Vegas shooter was effective is he was firing into a tightly packed crowd of over 22,000 people, from a concealed and fortified position.......

The only time a rifle mattered in a mass public shooting because he was firing over 400 yards.....

With all of that shooting, he murdered 60, wounded 413 by gun fire...



Meanwhile........

A muslim terrorist in Nice, France used a rental truck........and murdered 86, and wounded 435....


And again....when you confine the shooter to the interior of a building? Where the range of a rifle has no advantage?

Nashville

AR-15 rifle 6 killed

Kerch, Russia

5 shot, pump action shotgun, not a rifle, no magazine

20 killed

Navy Yard shooting

5 shot, pump action shotgun,not a rifle, no magazine

12 killed

Cumbria shooting in Britain...

...no semi-auto rifle...... Double barrel shotgun, bolt action rifle

13 killed, 11 injured....

Santa Fe, High school shooting

No rifle, pump action shotgun, .38 caliber revolver

10 killed

Luby's Cafe

24 killed, 2 pistols

Virgina Tech

32 people killed, 2 pistols.

The gun does not determine how many are killed and you have been explained this over and over

The amount of time the killer has in a gun free zone before someone shoota and stops them determines how many get killed as the two example above show.


==========
From 1982....various attacks.....most done without rifles, you twit.


Gilroy, semi-auto rifle with large magazine....3 killed

Dayton, democrat, socialist, antifa member, elizabeth warren supporter, semi-auto rifle with regular magazine....9 killed.

Umpquaa Community college shooting....5 pistols, 9 killed

Charleston Church shooting, 9 dead, 1 pistol.

Atlanta spree shooting.... 9 dead 3 pistols

Red Lake shooting 10 dead 2 pistols.

Santa Fe High school shooting...no rifle, no magazine.....shot gun and .38 revolver... 10 killed

Russian Polytechnic school shooting.... no rifle, no magazine.....tube fed, 5 shot, pump action shotgun....20 killed, 40 injured.

Navy Yard shooting.... no rifle, no magazine, tube fed pump action shotgun, 5,6 or 7 shot pump action shotgun....12 killed

Virginia Tech.... 32 people killed, 2 pistols.

Luby's cafe.... 24 killed, 2 pistols

British, Cumbria shooting....no semi-auto rifle...... Double barrel shotgun, bolt action rifle 13 killed, 11 injured....

Fort Hood....1 pistol....13 killed

Virginia beach...2 pistols .... 12 killed

 

[2aguy]

They should be ban based on how many bullets a magazine can hold which can be up to 30 but that number can be increased with modifications. Reload of a magazine is about 10 seconds for the slow pokes. Large capacity magazines significantly increase a shooters ability to injure or kill a large number of people quickly because they can shoot repeatedly without the need to reload. And reload is pretty simple to start the cycle again. And yes they are semi automatic weapons. Do hunters need a this weapon to hunt because they lack the skill to do it with lesser weapons.? Understand that those damn deer's are quick. Is it good for target practice? Well if your shooting one bullet at a time then any weapon will due.

So is it because they like the trill of shooting fast and furious?

Well the problem with all good things is bad actors who use it for bad things.

Well the NRA is with you and they take contributions Wayne LaPierre and company thanks you for your contributions .

Yes....we know.....you plan on using the AR-15 to come back and take all semi-automatic guns........you aren't supposed to talk about that yet......you have to wait to get the AR-15 banned first....then you come back for the rest citing the idea that they all operate like the AR-15


You really aren't supposed to bring that up yet....

 

[Kilroy2]

Yes....we know.....you plan on using the AR-15 to come back and take all semi-automatic guns........you aren't supposed to talk about that yet......you have to wait to get the AR-15 banned first....then you come back for the rest citing the idea that they all operate like the AR-15


You really aren't supposed to bring that up yet....

Sorry but I wasn't bring that up but you seem to think so. Is that your fear that someone will take away your gun?

 

[2aguy]

Sorry but I wasn't bring that up but you seem to think so. Is that your fear that someone will take away your gun?

Yes…the democrats have stated they want to ban and confiscate guns….they are completely open about it…..,,

 

[Kilroy2]

Better introduce legislation to ban rental trucks, diesel fuel and fertilizer. Those killed 168 in seconds while also maiming over 300 more. While your at it, you might look at pressure cookers and nuts and bolt as they killed 3 and maimed 17 more, also in seconds. Run along and come back when you have a point to make that doesn't have a hole the size of the Grand Canyon in it.

I thought that this was a debate on the topic. Is this the classical change the topic?