In The Wake Of This Tragedy

[KnightofChrist]

Of course you were. The word "stupid" is inherently ad-hominem. And now that the name calling has started, I'm just going to disengage from this whole conversation.

Gee comparing monks to a mass murder is both pretty insulting and stupid! But if you ask me your "darkies" comments was pretty close to the same kind of stupid.

[Lil Red]

Gee comparing monks to a mass murder is both pretty insulting and stupid! But if you ask me your "darkies" comments was pretty close to the same kind of stupid.

props.

[MissScripture]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Kevin" data-cid="2525987" data-time="1356033286"><p>
Gee, I don't think it was called for to insult me. I simply meant that there are many people in this world who are perfectly good and kind who might also be a bit strange, but if we pursue an aggressive policy of removing people with mental health issues or simply perceives issue from society (which is what I think is being implied), these people may becomes targets as well as those who are genuine threats. I am actually referring to the novel "The Ball and the Cross" by Chesterton where an eccentric priest who has a moment of spiritual clarity in a public place is swiftly thrown into an asylum. But mostly I don't feel insults are called for.</p></blockquote>

Also, who is advocating for the aggressive removal of all of those with mental health issues from society?

[Jesus_lol]

I said that the use of soldiers wasn't a good comparison because of range. But the comparison to SWAT trams is, I think, fair and you haven't really addressed it. Why don't SWAT teams just use a standard cop sidearm? We both know it's because a weapon like an AR15 is way more lethal than a 9mm, pratically speaking, particularly for somebody who is not extremely proficient with a fiream. Can somebody still kill a lot of people with a revolver and a lot of bullets? Sure. But chances are it will take them significantly longer and there will be more time for victims to excape and/or for the police to arrive. If you had to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible would you pick a normal handgun or an AR15 with a high capacity magazine? I've asked this a fee times but haven't gotten a straight answer and I think it's because everybody with any gun experience knows the answer to that question, all theory about firing rates aside. I could also kill a lot of kids with a musket and bayonet but an AR15 with high capacity magazines would be a lot more efficient.
 

 

In many cases, swat teams do use what is basically a standard sidearm " Submachine guns retain widespread use in police and counter-terrorist forces, which typically face unarmored opponents in the tight confines of civilian house-to-house fighting, where the lighter recoil, better control in burst or fully automatic mode and minimized overpenetration of submachine guns afford maximum benefit." Wherein a submachine gun is just a larger 9mm handgun with a stock to help control full auto fire.

 

AR15's are beginning to be widely used just because they are more widely capable, in that they can also handle longer range targets and potentially armoured individuals. That is general efficiency in terms of managing the spending of a PD's funds.

 

As far as efficiency in a shooting scenario, firing speed between the two choices(larger cap AR15 and handgun) would be about the same(as handguns are faster and easier to swap mags), this is of course ignoring that super high capacity mags exist for handguns as well. There is a bit of tradeoff in power and concealabilty, but i might give the handguns a nod just because you can much easier carry a large amount of loaded magazines, than the comparatively bulkier AR15 mags. Also a second handgun is easy to have on you in case of a jam(many recent shooters like James Holmes and the Portland guy had to stop using their AR when it jammed, which is incredibly common when using extended magazines like the large drums. Militaries dont use those for that reason)

 

In terms of end result on the people you are shooting at, in the connecticut school shooting he was hitting young kids, and doing so repeatedly, often shooting a kid multiple times. Any difference in per bullet lethality is somewhat moot(especially considering his targets being small children, given similar bullet placement i really doubt there would be any difference in survivability between 9mm/40s&w/45acp and .223)

 

Again, Luby's Massacre was done with a single 15 round handgun, reloaded constantly, and 24 adults were killed. Eric Harris did fine with his HiPoint 9mm with 10 round mags, performing at least 9 mag swaps, same thing with Kimveer Gill in Canada using a 9mm Carbine 10 rnd capacity.

 

In terms of danger when used in shootings like this, handguns and Ar15s are somewhat like comparing the traffic law breaking/speeding potential of a 750cc Sportbike and a 1000cc sportbike. Despite having more power, only a very experienced rider can use the larger one more effectively(even then to marginal results),they can both leave the speed limits so far behind as to make comparisons academic

 

You said "He had kids trapped in a room and shot them repeatedly, methodically reloading several times. A simple handgun(even a revolver with moon clips) would have been just as easy to do the exact same damage with just one 9mm. Swapping out magazines can be done nearly instantly with practice, and anyone should be able to do it in a second or two."

 

I said: "Nearly instant" is not the same as "semi-automatic". I'd like to know, if you're theory is correct, we bother arming troops in Aghanistan with M16s if a pistol is just as good "with practice."

 

In the first place, I'm not talking about this particular situation, but about the deadliness of the weapon in general. In the second case, my argument was that, by your reasoning, you can fire off as many rounds in a given period of time with a 9mm as with an AR-15. I was suggesting incredulity - if this was the case, one of the main advantages of a larger magazine would be lost for semi-automatic rifles.

 

Do you really think that the difference in lethality of two shooters is whether one can shoot 200 bullets in a minute versus 210? Even reloading twice as often i would expect a pistol/pistol carbine shooter to be able to about match fire rate of an AR15, much more manageable recoil, easier to get back on target and quicker/easier reloads.

 

Besides, its not like an effective shooter walks into a building and just starts dumping magazines out as fast as he can, like Leatherface revving a chainsaw. Doing so would mean you would be reloading those 20-30 round mags every 3 seconds, and asking for a jam(which takes even experienced shooters a long time to clear). Some shooters have done this, which is how  you hear about a guy firing 100 rounds in a mall and only hitting 2 people, basically by accident.

 

Aimed fire at separate targets is how these guys rack up large body counts, and that can be done easily whatever your choice of gun. If all you want to talk about is theoretical rate of fire at top speed, go ahead but it isnt at all relevant here. A person committing a shooting spree with a full auto m16 would hit significantly less targets than one with a semi auto fire, taking aim at separate targets one at a time. They would be shooting out of control, just making a lot of noise and putting more bullets in the wall/roof than in people, and having to reload their gun literally every 2 seconds. 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfL62FOpc80

 

is a good example of switching between various targets(in difficult areas) with a handgun and reloading the gun in between shots, often with no slowdown of actual shooting.

 

Some of the most deadly shooting sprees have been done with common handguns. For instance, Virginia Tech killed 33 with a 9mm and fricking .22 cal handgun. or Luby's killed 24 using a handgun. Compared to guys who think that having a big heavy Call of Duty gun will be all they need and they jump in guns spraying everywhere and hitting no one.

[Winchester]

Of course you were. The word "stupid" is inherently ad-hominem. And now that the name calling has started, I'm just going to disengage from this whole conversation.

 

We need a scumbag Kevin meme.

 

Connects gun ownership with racism

 

 

Cries about having his post called stupid

[Selah]

So, found this while randomly watching Jennamarbles' videos:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=64G5FfG2Xpg

 

What are your thoughts?

[4588686]

Hand guns are the main problem. And if you YouTube 'Chris Rock and gun control' you will see the perfect solution.

[Kevin]

Hand guns are the main problem. And if you YouTube 'Chris Rock and gun control' you will see the perfect solution.

 

This is what I have actually thought since I first heard the routine in 7th grade - $5,000 bullets would solve everything.

 

This piece has some interesting information about how the NRA quashes not only gun control, but the very distribution to the public of statistics on what guns kill how many people per year.

Edited December 22, 2012 by Kevin

[Winchester]

This is what I have actually thought since I first heard the routine in 7th grade - $5,000 bullets would solve everything.

 

Yes, coercion solves all problems. And no black market would arise. That's why nobody uses illegal drugs, anymore. And those that we catch, we throw in prison. And not only is that a cheap solution, they come out of prison as better people.

[StMichael]

Hand guns are the main problem. And if you YouTube 'Chris Rock and gun control' you will see the perfect solution.

 

Main problem for what? 

 

This is far too exhausting. What was used in the Oklahoma murders? Was a single gun used to kill almost 3,000 people on 9/11?

 

Thankfully we have a bill of rights and not a bill of what other people think you need.

 

If you want to have a gun, it is your right.

 

If you want to express yourself freely, it is your right.

 

Neither, as well as others, need the approval of Chris Rock, Obama or you.

 

Those who use their rights to infringe on others rights are responsible, not the manure used in Oklahoma, the planes on 9/11 or the guns used to enact evil.

 

Merry Christmas.

[sixpence]

well I'm back from my trip, I heard about this tragedy the day I was driving home to fly out with my friends.... I was also driving from NJ that morning and was in CT when I heard :( ...I felt kind of like I wished I left earlier like I had planned and maybe crashed into that guy or something :( Just keep praying for CT

[Winchester]

Main problem for what? 

 

This is far too exhausting. What was used in the Oklahoma murders? Was a single gun used to kill almost 3,000 people on 9/11?

 

Thankfully we have a bill of rights and not a bill of what other people think you need.

 

If you want to have a gun, it is your right.

 

If you want to express yourself freely, it is your right.

 

Neither, as well as others, need the approval of Chris Rock, Obama or you.

 

Those who use their rights to infringe on others rights are responsible, not the manure used in Oklahoma, the planes on 9/11 or the guns used to enact evil.

 

Merry Christmas.

 

I think that 'Merry Christmas' was probably quite terse.

[Ash Wednesday]

What does all of this jibber-jabber have to do with anything?

 

 

Approves.

[4588686]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="StMichael" data-cid="2526611" data-time="1356233998"><p>
Main problem for what? <br />
<br />
This is far too exhausting. What was used in the Oklahoma murders? Was a single gun used to kill almost 3,000 people on 9/11?<br />
<br />
Thankfully we have a bill of rights and not a bill of what other people think you need.<br />
<br />
If you want to have a gun, it is your right.<br />
<br />
If you want to express yourself freely, it is your right.<br />
<br />
Neither, as well as others, need the approval of Chris Rock, Obama or you.<br />
<br />
Those who use their rights to infringe on others rights are responsible, not the manure used in Oklahoma, the planes on 9/11 or the guns used to enact evil.<br />
<br />
Merry Christmas.</p></blockquote>

The main problem of gun violence. Tge right to bear arms is not an unqualified right. I refer you to the pro-gun USSC opinion on the issue. Hand guns have killed far more people than Oklahoma and 9/11 combined. Probably because it's a lot easier to go to walmart and buy a gun than to hijack a 747.

[StMichael]

If the right to bear arms is as you say "not an unqualified right," then neither is freedom of the press nor freedom of religion nor any of the other parts of the Bill of Rights meant to keep the government away.

 

Violence, regardless of what is used, a car, gun, knife, bomb, is intended to kill or injure. 

 

Cars kill people, and as they become more fuel efficient, they are even more dangerous as they are lighter and lighter. Should we ban cars?

 

It is the want to do violence, not the tool being used. 

 

The Newtown evil was done with stolen guns (the shooter did not own these guns). 

 

And, while I do not own a gun, I believe the 2nd amendment ensures that I can and might just go get one today. Not to perform violence, but to protect my family and myself from those who want to do harm.

 

As it stands, local governments are doing all they can to circumvent all those rights they are barred from infringing upon. Hard to find one of the Bill of rights that some despot has not attempted to circumvent.

 

Bad guys will find the weakest point of resistance, this has been the case from Fort Hood to Newtown.

 

Have a Happy New Year.

 

 

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="StMichael" data-cid="2526611" data-time="1356233998"><p>
Main problem for what? <br />
<br />
This is far too exhausting. What was used in the Oklahoma murders? Was a single gun used to kill almost 3,000 people on 9/11?<br />
<br />
Thankfully we have a bill of rights and not a bill of what other people think you need.<br />
<br />
If you want to have a gun, it is your right.<br />
<br />
If you want to express yourself freely, it is your right.<br />
<br />
Neither, as well as others, need the approval of Chris Rock, Obama or you.<br />
<br />
Those who use their rights to infringe on others rights are responsible, not the manure used in Oklahoma, the planes on 9/11 or the guns used to enact evil.<br />
<br />
Merry Christmas.</p></blockquote>

The main problem of gun violence. Tge right to bear arms is not an unqualified right. I refer you to the pro-gun USSC opinion on the issue. Hand guns have killed far more people than Oklahoma and 9/11 combined. Probably because it's a lot easier to go to walmart and buy a gun than to hijack a 747.