Here We Go Again.......

What proof do you have of reducing violence.


Hate to tell you this, but an AR-15 can easily fire more than 45 rounds per minute (semi auto)
Not sure where you are getting this info, but it is not correct.

And, sports cars have killed school children.

 

I said...

I base this on common sense.

See Reference #2.

How many American school children have been killed in mass attacks where the perpetrator use a sports car?
Links please...

 

Here's a list of the 23 deadliest mass shootings in the US.
In 11 of them semi-automatic rifles were used.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

I'm waiting for the list of mass killings in the US in which sports cars were used.

 

Do they include suicide?

 

Eldon, the effective rate of fire of an Ar-15 is NOT 45 rounds per second. Wherever you are getting that info is just wrong. If is much higher.

My point of sports cars was not a 'mass' killing, but they could be used.

 

Don't be facetious. It's beneath both of us.

 

Guns are made to kill. The first firearms were military weapons designed to fire projectiles at enemy combatants. The majority of guns are made for killing. Let's not waste any more time on such a transparent deception.

 

Good catch there, did not see it. Many times suicides are lumped in with homicides.

 

No, actually they are made to project a bullet at a target. If they are only used to kill, then my guns and many other people's guns have wasted thousands of bullets not killing anyone.

Do gun companies test fire the guns at people, or targets?

 

Tim, your link looks like this to me (see attachment). I see an * after gun deaths, and think it is age adjusted death rate? Sorry, to small for me to see. Would be great if you have a website link for it.

 

So, you have no facts to back up your claim. Fine. As far as "See Reference #2" you lost me. I said sports cars could be used for mass killings, not American school children. Common sense tells me the possibility exists.

And, I must admit, I am wrong about sports cars. It is the diesel cars we must regulate.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...l-deaths-Europe-caused-eco-friendly-cars.html

Wow, 38,000 deaths...

And Tim, sorry about the double post above, saw it too late to delete.

 

The Bushmaster XM-15 - Maximum effective rate 45 rounds per minute (semi-auto)[2]
It's in the column on the right
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushmaster_XM-15

Really? Click on the [2]
Or scroll down and you'll see...
References
It's the second one.
Bushmaster XM15 operating manual, 1999 revision: statistics are for Bushmaster XM15-E2S

Give us a list of mass killings in which sports cars were used in the US.
This thread is about a mass killing in the US.

 

https://www.safehome.org/resources/gun-laws-and-deaths/

 

You want guns for protection, Fred. Protection against criminals and a potentially tyrannical government. You've stated that many times. How will you use those guns to protect you?

 

He will go out target shooting and that will teach those bits of paper

Nah he will first threaten his attackers and then shoot them with his gun if he thinks he has to

Or maybe it will be BANG!!! ......... Stop or I will shoot.....oops wrong order ....

 

Wow Tim...powerful video
Quote from video he asks, "is my right to own this weapon more important than human life"
I think this is a very important question at the heart of the gun ownership problem
Gun owners need to wake up to the reality that this class of assault weapon is responsible for more mass shootings than any other in recent times.
BTW Calling assault rifles hunting rifles or anything else to avoid them being tagged as assault weapons is just semantics because regardless what they are called, they still kill the in the same devastating manner

Doing nothing and only offering prayers is not good leadership and definitely won't reduce the mass shootings

 

An AR15 is not an assault rifle. That is an undeniable fact.

 

Here's a pic show the difference between 2 guns. One being the type banned by most assault weapon bans. Yes, some bans are still in effect in various cities and states. Pistols also come in both varieties. With similar differences between banned and not banned.

 

Why do they look different? Is the US Army more fashion conscious or are there practical design considerations?

The last caption: It's about fooling you into thinking something is being done about gun violence.
The conservative option: We're not even going to pretend we care. These deaths are acceptable losses. We intend to do nothing because we're good with the status quo. Thoughts and prayers, because it's the least we can do, it's the most we will do.

 

Don't know anything of the conservative or liberal or non- affiliated view for that matter. But the old 94-04 ban on assault basically banned the plastic bodies, the knife mounts, the protective shrould over the barrel and a few other mainly add-on items. The basic gun could still have been bought. So instead of a coulple 30 round mags you could carry as many 10 rnd mags as you could tote. It couldn't be folded up to help conceal or make it easier to transport.

Same firepower. Same range. Just as deadly. But still allowed in the basic form. Pistols have the same characteristics between a between an average model allowed pistol and it's assault weapon model.

All just as deadly. Ban one but not the other. You tell me why?

 

The clip is not shown. The slot for it is still there. Only a 10 round magazine is allowed. Used to be 7 in many places.

 

Hey Tim there are lots of aftermarket high capacity magazines and they are comparatively cheap.
My previously owned Ruger 10/22 semiautomatic rifle could have a 110 shot magazine added. Supposedly filing down one part in the trigger mechanism then turns it into a fully automatic machinegun
https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/pro...s-polymer-black-germr110ten22-813393012846.do

In Australia, if it is semiautomatic it is banned, if it is fully automatic it is banned, if it is a shotgun and has more than a three shot capacity it is banned, if it is less than a certain length it is either banned or classed as a pistol and restricted, if it has a short or collapsible stock it is banned.......... there are plenty more regulations and the Australian government refused to argue semantics with the gun lobby about what they choose to call their firearms and what appearance the gun manufacturers choose to give their weapons. Blanket bans covering all types of weapons were introduced to stop manufacturers redesigning the appearance of weapons so a gun with the same firepower as an assault rifle couldn't be made to look like a sporting or hunting rifle and thus be spared being banned.
I think Australia got it mostly right.

 

Answer my question and I'll answer yours. Quid pro quo. Yes or no?

 

Sorry! Didn't take it as a serious question. Some you can see in the pics some you can't. The light weight composite body. Army version need strength and light weight at the same time. The large shroud around the barrel protects from burns to the user that are possible when using it in automatic mode in a fire fight. The large magazine it to hold enough bullets for a couple return fires in a fight before needing changing. (If you haven't killed a deer or pig in 30 shots it's probably time to go home. You have just scared every animal off for the hour or so!) Fold-up stock lends to easy transport. Many men in a chopper need a bunch of room. You unfold when almost ready to depart. Or when packing up to go home. The knife mount? You can guess that from movies, The threaded end of the barrel - flash suppressor, silencer, and somewhere on there's a mount for grenade launching.

Oh - the basic wooden stock one. Maybe windage sights for long shots and a 6-round clip for deer or bear (or pig!).

 

The DOD specifies those features for functional reasons, not because they 'look scary', as someone else claimed. This whole idea it's just looks is BS. Form follows function.

 

Call it semantics or what have you, but I call it that I have experience firing real assault weapons.

M16A2 Service Rifle - This is a military grade weapon, in that, it is automatic, as well as semi automatic. The AR15 can NEVER be fully automatic, and if it is, then it is an illegal firearm by fact.

MK19 Grenade Launcher - Fires a 40mm grenade in fully automatic mode. There is no semi fire on this thing.

M240G Machine Gun - Full automatic weapon, so much so, that barrels have to be changed or they will melt due to extreme heat during fire.

M249 SAW - Fires same round as .223, but is fully automatic.

All of these weapons are assault, or military grade weapons. I would NEVER go into battle as a Marine with a semi-automatic only weapon.

 

Seriously trying to equate purchasing a gun with abortion? Really?

 

I have used a gun to prevent a person from breaking into my hotel room years ago. No shots fired. I will use the gun to the same level as the criminal threatens.

 

How about this picture? https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/models.html

 

Really?

Honestly, I suspect this is projection.

 

Thanks for the link. Not sure how they define "effective rate of fire". But, an AR-15 with 25 or 30 round mags would easily be able to fire closer to 60-80 rounds, depending on how quickly the shooter could load a full mag. Anyway, unless they are using 10 round mags, 45 rounds per minute is very low.

TimW, here is another opinion:

 

Get real.......these mass shootings aren't military campaigns with trained militia fighting for their lives against adversaries that may be equally armed.......these are people shooting mostly unarmed kids and people and the AR-15 performs well enough to kill lots of people in a very short time. Obviously the guns aren't failing due to barrels melting in the course of the shooting so they are fit for purpose.....killing people.

This discussion isn't about whether an AR-15 would be used by the military and this is an irrelevant distraction because the military have access to any gun they choose.
It is about the current go to gun for mass shootings and whether the general public really NEED a gun such as this for hunting and home protection.
The AR-15 is doing the killing and where is it relevant as to whether it is a military weapon or not as the military are not doing the shooting and military needs are different to the needs of a once off mass shooter.
The civilians are buying legal guns that have similar performance to a military weapon and they can buy them at 18 years of age with minimum regulatory control and can then go on a shooting rampage.

No matter how many times I hear that "guns don't kill , it is the people that do the killing" the one irrefutable fact is that without the AR-15 there would be a lot more children alive today.........

 

I respect the person's opinion, but as I suspect you know, do not believe they are right. The Formula One car analogy, well, it makes no sense. Speeding, with any car violates the law. Someone such as myself using a gun in a legal way, violates no laws. Heck, my Camry can easily exceed the speed limit, and yes, guns can be used to kill innocent people.

It was an interesting read though.

 

Changing the age to 21 to buy any gun might be a start that I suspect most gun owners would not oppose very strongly. Magazine fed semi auto rifles are however used in a relatively few shootings. Like a plane crash, when they are used, it is news.

323 deaths in 2011 by rifles. This would be "assault weapons" and other rifles. 323 out of 8,583 deaths caused by all guns, according to FBI stats. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.....-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11 In fact, more are killed by feet and hands...

And no matter how you want to put it, inanimate objects do not kill on their own. Guns, hammers, bats, trucks, pressure cookers, planes... they all require an evil person to commit the crime.

 

Five things harder to buy than an AR-15 in Florida
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florid...medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_fark

 

You used the threat of death.

Including killing.

Why are you so terrified to admit the truth?

 

What threat was that person offering while attempting to break into an occupied room? Nobody was injured or killed. Sure, I will shoot until a threat stops being a threat if I have to, but killing is not my goal.

 

Out of curiosity, how would you make a law or laws that would prevent a determined person from committing mass murder? And, are you really sure you want to have laws that will do such a thing? Remember, more people are killed by feet and hands than rifles in the US. How would you prevent the almost 2X deaths by hands and feet than rifles kill in a year?

Common sense hand and foot safety laws? Or maybe look into the fact that there are evil people in the world, and they do not follow logic, laws, or human decency.

 

Of course you will not stop a committed person from committing mass murder but you certainly can make it much harder for him or her to get the easiest weapons of choice.....
I feel safe in my country and nobody is worried about sending their kids to school and hearing about a shooting tragedy on the news........oh one more thing, we don't have the need for security guards at our schools and they are not setup like prison camps.

So you are inferring there are more mass killings by feet and hands in the US than by firearms.....give me break Fred....this thread is about mass shootings in schools and I can't remember seeing any mass murders in any school by feet and hands.

Obviously the US is going to be harder than Australia due to the massive number of weapons in circulation and few citizens have any inclination of surrendering any of them. In Australia pistol ownership has always been restricted and the only people who can have concealed carry are undercover police and some of the military forces. It is illegal for ordinary people to own any pistol for self defence or hunting. Ordinary people can only have a pistol for sporting reasons like if they want to pursue target shooting as a sport and so then they have to be a member in an approved pistol club. Powerful rifles have always required extra accreditations on your gun licence and you need to have a demonstrated need for that class of firearm. Just wanting a 50 calibre weapon isn't a valid reason for being allowed to have one. In three months the government bought back and destroyed over 1 million guns which put a huge dent in the number of guns in circulation and now after strict regulation since 1996 there is a shortage of guns for sale on the black market. If the US bought back 1 million guns it would probably only equal the number sold that weekend by Walmart and therefore have no impact.

Something does need to change to stop the senseless killing and I don't pretend to have the answers but looking as an outsider I can only see these mass shootings are becoming more frequent and unless something is done it will continue to accelerate.

 

Well said!

 

Jeez Tim....Snopes.......Fred won't like reading this......so much for hands and feet..... and from the article I quote below