Have we become used to or immune to mass shootings?

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Glinda

In point of fact, we don't have any idea how many assault-type weapons are out there,

Nobody knows exactly how many assault rifles exist in the U.S. – by design

but I think it's a safe bet to say there are many more today than there were 20 years ago.

Don't put any of your hard earned money on that bet... you'd lose it.
Assault rifles and any other automatic weapons (read machine guns), have been illegal since the '30s, without a government license that involves a background check and costs hundreds of dollars a year.

I'm totally on board with regulation, total ban on automatics and background checks at gun shows. But berating the AR-15 or any other rifle that looks scary is tilting at windmills. Even if successful would do no good.

[Glinda]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Don't put any of your hard earned money on that bet... you'd lose it.

Oh, I strongly doubt that.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Assault rifles and any other automatic weapons (read machine guns), have been illegal since the '30s, without a government license that involves a background check and costs hundreds of dollars a year.

From my link:

The only figures available that give even a hint of how many assault rifles may exist in the U.S. is manufacturer data. ATF publishes annual reports on the number of pistols, rifles, revolvers and shotguns manufactured and distributed in the U.S., but none of those categories are broken down more specifically, and there’s no way of knowing how many were actually sold to individuals.

Still, while limited, that data would seem to indicate the popularity of rifles and pistols has exploded in the past decade — manufacturing of guns in both categories has more than doubled. In 2007, 1.6 million rifles were made and distributed in the U.S., while by 2016 the number was up to 4.2 million.

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

I'm totally on board with regulation, total ban on automatics and background checks at gun shows. But berating the AR-15 or any other rifle that looks scary is tilting at windmills. Even if successful would do no good.

I've not berated the AR-15 or any other rifle that "looks scary."

You know, I'm no gun hater. I've got a loaded Mossberg next to my front door (purchased specifically and solely to protect my chickens). But there are VERY effective solutions to the rampant gun problem we have here in the US (eg. UK, Australia). We just don't want to go there. We're little more than pussies that need our big bad weapons to keep our peckers up, to the tune of 33,000 dead people (and another 75,000 non-fatal gun injuries) per year.

Is it worth it? Is it really? Speaking just for myself, I say no.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Glinda

Oh, I strongly doubt that.

You're wrong, assault rifles are illegal.

I've not berated the AR-15 or any other rifle that "looks scary."

As soon as you call guns that look scary "assault rifles", that's exactly what you're doing.

You know, I'm no gun hater. I've got a loaded Mossberg next to my front door (purchased specifically and solely to protect my chickens). But there are VERY effective solutions to the rampant gun problem we have here in the US (eg. UK, Australia). We just don't want to go there. We're little more than pussies that need our big bad weapons to keep our peckers up, to the tune of 33,000 dead people (and another 75,000 non-fatal gun injuries) per year.

Is it worth it? Is it really? Speaking just for myself, I say no.

Care to break those numbers down? How many were hand guns? Don't they look scary enough to do something about?

Fact Check:

Lankford pointed out the high proportion of crimes committed with handguns after NBC host Chuck Todd pressed him on whether the AR-15, the weapon used in the Parkland, Fla. shooting, should remain classified as a rifle.

“So there are three or four, five times as many crimes committed with a handgun than there are with a rifle. So we can have that conversation. But when you look at the statistics, many, many, many more shootings occur with a pistol than they do with a rifle,” Lankford said on “Meet the Press.”

His office pointed The Daily Caller News Foundation to the FBI’s annual Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) on firearms used in murders. By that measure, Lankford is right that handguns are used much more often than rifles.

Handguns were used in 19 times as many murders than rifles were in 2016, according to the UCR data. Handguns killed nine times as many victims as rifles, shotguns, and other guns did combined. The type of firearm used was unknown for about 28 percent of all firearm murders.

Firearms are the most common murder weapon, accounting for over half of the murders each year from 2007 to 2016. The FBI’s UCR shows that 11,004 of the 15,070 murders in 2016 were committed with firearms.

All these reports exclude suicides.

[Griff]

I think we should consider why the military switched from the M-1 and M-14 to the M-16. They wanted something light that anybody can easily carry and doesn't beat up the shooter when firing a bunch of rounds. The AR 15 is a weapon which any dope can shoot a lot of rounds out of and now they apparently do. The small .223 round is not a deer hunter because it's an organ shredder rather than a knock down round. The heavy bolt action sporterized rifles circa WWI are good shooters for hunting with enough kick that you know you're doing damage.

I'd like to see the end of semi-auto civilian weapons and high capacity magazines. I really think the 2nd Amendment fantasy needs to meet the reality. Who do you intend to shoot with your AR? At this point we've seen a lot of innocents die for what looks like a fantasy about shooting American soldiers and American cops.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Don't need semi-autos, the rifleman did quite well without it. This whole dog&pony show is drawing attention away from the bigger problem, hand guns, because they don't make big enough headlines.
What's another drug user here and a nigger there, I live in the safe 'burbs.

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by Griff

... I really think the 2nd Amendment fantasy needs to meet the reality. Who do you intend to shoot with your AR? At this point we've seen a lot of innocents die for what looks like a fantasy about shooting American soldiers and American cops.

OTOH a lot of people think your panacea fantasy needs to meet the 2nd Amendment reality that civilians want the personal issue firearms military and police use in self defense, for the same advantages, believing they have the same right to life. Compromises have already been reached. Fully automatic firearms are not generally available to the public and they don't get to attach silencers, bayonets; or, grenade launchers to them either. The line between offensive and defensive capability of the firearms has been drawn.

But there are those who want to blur the line based on whether the firearm is used legally; or, illegally. It's usually those who have no need or interest in them. But these same people would never consider giving up the kinds of things THEY need or want, like privately owned vehicles, that may be used illegally (or accidently) to take innocent lives. Oh no, that's different.

Then it becomes a numbers game: Well what you need or want costs more in innocent lives than what I need or want so you have to give yours up; but, I don't have to give up mine ... and there's more people who want what I want so the cost in lives is acceptable ... and anyone who says only professional drivers should have vehicles; or, no one should have a vehicle that goes over 15 mph to save innocent lives is nuts. If they refer to us responsible vehicle owners as crazed child killers and boycott car manufacturers because of the actions of a few bad drivers, we'll join the National Drivers Association and lobby for our hypocrisy!

We've seen a lot of innocents die for what looks like an American fantasy about the freedom of the road and driving on vacations. How about all those drivers who have cars that are too big and too fast for their needs. All that power affects their minds and turns them into reckless pedal to the metal killers. Yet, these people who won't give up the excessive privilege of driving privately owned vehicles in order to save innocent lives want others to give up the basic right to firearms that can save their owners' lives. Who you going to save with your privately owned motor vehicle? People have gotten along just fine with horses for hundreds of years. I'd like to see the end of sheeple hypocrisy.

^Heh, heh. I did a tw with a twist with Griff.^

[xoxoxoBruce]

When you pry my cold dead fingers from the steering wheel.

[Griff]

Originally Posted by sexobon

OTOH a lot of people think your panacea fantasy needs to meet the 2nd Amendment reality that civilians want the personal issue firearms military and police use in self defense, for the same advantages, believing they have the same right to life. Compromises have already been reached. Fully automatic firearms are not generally available to the public and they don't get to attach silencers, bayonets; or, grenade launchers to them either. The line between offensive and defensive capability of the firearms has been drawn.

Now we're talking self defense rather than a well regulated militia. If your concern is Al Q swinging by the house because of an anti-special ops vendetta maybe your military background gives you a desire to turn offensive. From a civilian perspective, an armed intruder is best handled with a shotgun. If I want a fire fight with the Sheriff's department then I want an AR. I don't want to get into it with the cops or the national guard etc... I like my chances in court and I think conservatism is agreeable to a functional rule of law.

like privately owned vehicles, that may be used illegally (or accidently) to take innocent lives. Oh no, that's different.

Inspections, drivers tests, seat-belts, airbags, speed limits, my freedom ends where your nose begins.

[henry quirk]

*sigh*

So tiresome.

Just ban all goddamned guns and confiscate *'em (if folks don't turn 'em in).

Then we can get back to building that communitarian utopia.









*good luck gettin mine, motherfuckers

[tw]

Originally Posted by sexobon

We've seen a lot of innocents die for what looks like an American fantasy about the freedom of the road and driving on vacations. How about all those drivers who have cars that are too big and too fast for their needs. All that power affects their minds and turns them into reckless pedal to the metal killers.

How many 2000 and 5000 horsepower cars are on your road? Your reasoning constantly ignores perspective - which is what extremists do. You have again invented a fear that does not exist.

Love of big guns (an emotion) is why deaths in schools, on roads, and in malls are increasing. Only emotions define your needs and fears. Clearly logic has not. Nobody here needs an assault weapon. Highways do not have 5000 horsepower cars.

If properly trained, the bad guy will be well inside an effective radius before you realize he is a bad guy. Research says that weapon is three times more likely to be used on you than on a bad guy. That is from adult whose brains think rationally. And denied by brains that make conclusions from emotions - and irrational fears.

Same irrational fear are causing increasing massacres - now about one a week. No civilian needs an assault rifle and big clips. But some are so emotional today that their kid can no longer walk from a school bus, one quarter mile, to home. Because it is too dangerous. More examples of adults who are still children.

[henry quirk]

"You have again invented a fear that does not exist."

As have you and all your commie friends at CNN, MSNBC, HLN, the Washington Post, the New York Times, and on and on.

I'd have a helluva lot more respect for the lot of you if you all just admitted what you want.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Glinda

We're little more than pussies that need our big bad weapons to keep our peckers up, to the tune of 33,000 dead people (and another 75,000 non-fatal gun injuries) per year.

Nobody needs guns that shoot NATO rounds (ie AR-15). Those exist for only one purpose - to kill people.

A true sportsman fires once, takes the gun off his shoulder, puts it back up, and then fires again. If you can't do that and hit the target every time, then a sportsman needs practice; must do that many more times.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by tw

Nobody needs guns that shoot NATO rounds (ie AR-15). Those exist for only one purpose - to kill people.

No, NATO rounds are designed to wound people. A wounded enemy takes one or two, sometimes more, enemy out of the battle to tend him/her.
NATO rounds are too small for most game hunting, only good for practice.

[tw]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, NATO rounds are designed to wound people.

NATO rounds will even penetrate light armour. A problem for amphibious armour used by the Marines.

NATO rounds will penetrate cars. And two LA bank robbers demonstrated when shooting through cars to hit so many policemen.

NATO rounds will blow through game doing massive damage. Hunters use smaller caliber munitions - not NATO rounds.

No civilian needs guns that fire military munitions - NATO rounds. Those exist only to kill people. Not wound them. Kill them.

Where was this week's mass shootings?

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

The last two shoot faster than the rest, if you measure over, say, 100 rounds, and have your magazines preloaded. And bump stocks would only fit the last one.