Ongoing US Mass Shooting Thread

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by 110%

People can essentially print a functioning gun (including the AR 15) on a 3D printer that will fire a round. It will soon be far easier to print off a gun than grow drugs. Some people developing this technology are also big time open source proponents, meaning they want everyone to be able to (or at least have access to the schematics) to print off a gun. This technology is real.

Here's a a kind of bad video about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DconsfGsXyA

You can make a gun out of steel tubing and a nail if you want, but almost no one would bother, no one bothers now where guns are illegal.
Part of the problem for gun owners is understanding how quickly the U.S. Could go from being 'from my cold dead hands' to 'meh, I never used the things anyway' for almost everyone. And yes there would be a percentage of good old boy hold outs, but over a few decades they would disappear.

The other thing people need to realize is the U.S. Is the source for most illegal guns in the developed world, it is the only place you can legally easily buy guns to smuggle to the UK or Canada, the longer and harder the trip, the higher the price which is why a black market gun in the UK costs tens of thousands.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Derek Sutton

This "law" A) would never happen (reality vs fantasy) and B) wpuld just make the 90 some odd percentage of law abidding gun owners criminals. The public will not "surreneder" the guns. And with some 300 million in America, no union would support a door to door confiscation of firearms for variouls safety reasons.

I don't think it's about to happen as the gun manufacturers have congress in their pocket, if though that changed gun owners in the U.S. would dutifully hand in their guns. It would no doubt be sold as part of the war on terror or the like and, like the war on drugs, or communism or alcohol the average yank would rush to hand over their guns.

If theres one thing we have learnt in the past decade the American public can be persuaded to give up every right in the constitution, they are a panicky ill informed mob at best, with the appropriate manipulation they will burn out the NRA's offices with pitchforks and torches.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Part of the problem for gun owners is understanding how quickly the U.S. Could go from being 'from my cold dead hands' to 'meh, I never used the things anyway' for almost everyone. And yes there would be a percentage of good old boy hold outs, but over a few decades they would disappear.

I really don't think that's true. You can not undo 250 years of conditioned paranoia, training, brain washing and culture in a few decades. If that were true, there would be no racism in the southern US.

From Obama's "n word" speech yesterday....

“It’s not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don’t, overnight, completely erase everything that happened 200 to 300 years prior.”

Americans sing songs about bombing the living @$#% out of people before kids go to school. 5 million people are registered gun nuts (nra). You will never in a million years change all that by asking nicely.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by puffnstuff

What 'sport' requires semi automatic fire? Is it a 'gee itd be nice if I didnt have to cycle the bolt manually to shoot at that target again' or is there an actual sport that requires the kind of fire rate a semi automatic can only provide?

One round with one pull of the trigger is one round with one pull of the trigger, regardless of the action required to cycle the action. With practice, you can get very, very quick with even a bolt action. Often with better accuracy than a semi. Semi-auto vs. pump action vs. bolt action, it's not going to make a difference if someone decides to break the law using a firearm.

Either way, the comment I made was regarding the ridiculous assertion of many people that having a pistol grip or small piece of metal to reduce muzzle flash or cover a hot barrel suddenly turns a rifle from a "sporting gun" to an "assault weapon".

Originally Posted by CroFlames

Well perhaps that is a small price to pay to save thousands of lives. Do you have a better idea how to save those lives?

I'd say that increasing access to good mental health care would do a lot to decrease the largest contributor to the gun death numbers (suicide). Followed by actually addressing the social and economic reasons people are committing crimes in the first place. If you got rid of all guns overnight, people will still kill themselves and each other. The drive should be to reduce those things happening by any means.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

If you got rid of all guns overnight, people will still kill themselves and each other. The drive should be to reduce those things happening by any means.

Some means of killing people are a lot easier than others. I doubt we'll see baseball bat massacres anytime soon, or people strangling motorists in road rage incidents.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

One round with one pull of the trigger is one round with one pull of the trigger, regardless of the action required to cycle the action. With practice, you can get very, very quick with even a bolt action. Often with better accuracy than a semi. Semi-auto vs. pump action vs. bolt action, it's not going to make a difference if someone decides to break the law using a firearm.

Pretty sure a lay person being able to fire 13 bullets a second with a high capacity clip is more dangerous than a guy who can fire a couple a second and has to reload after 8 shots.

heck the fastest shooter in the world can fire off about 8 bullets a second. A semi-auto AR-15 fires 13.3 a second.


What might make a difference is someone not having easy access to things if they decide to break the law. What might work is limiting things such that if they do break the law they have a much harder time taking out a lot of people. It's common sense.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

That is probably the only strategy that I have heard with a chance of making a difference. I have often wondered why the "...as part of a well regulated militia" just gets overlooked.

Troutman, I think, posted a link to the New Yorker a couple pages back that explained that. The NRA transitioned into an activist political lobby group and spent millions of dollars on a concerted campaign to reinterpret the US Constitution so as to trivialize the militia part, and therefore reinvent it to mean it was an individual right rather than a collective right for mutual protection.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

If you got rid of all guns overnight, people will still kill themselves and each other.

Of course they will. It'll just happen less often and fewer will be successful, which is the point.

[FlamesAddiction]

Having guns on the street is basically no different than have a "kill switch" on you. If someone invented a non-firearm device that could be concealed and be used to random kill someone with the push of a button, it would be outlawed immediately.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Troutman, I think, posted a link to the New Yorker a couple pages back that explained that. The NRA transitioned into an activist political lobby group and spent millions of dollars on a concerted campaign to reinterpret the US Constitution so as to trivialize the militia part, and therefore reinvent it to mean it was an individual right rather than a collective right for mutual protection.

I like the idea that all civilian available weapons have the separate powder, ball and flint action. Single Round.

If anything that would reduce mass shootings, plus because of the 6 foot long rifle the concealed firearms thing would be a thing of the past.


Frankly - You don't need a semi-automatic or automatic weapon for home defense, hunting or turning out the lights in your house at night. In fact in a confined space where I'd say that more then half of the gun owners are extremely inexperienced or downright dangerous the ability to fire a wall of lead is more then likely to kill an innocent victim then a criminal.

The whole we need these weapons to stand up to the corrupt gubernment is stupid. A guy with a automatic weapon isn't going to do very well if the government decides its time to seize ultimate power, a armored Cav unit isn't going to care very much if you have a M-16. A modern Battle Tanks main gun can travel 3 km's. A squad of trained infantry men in a house to house battle are going to kill you're a$$ dead and move on to the next house.

Ok, how about the whole, if a person had a gun in that church where those poor people were shot, or the theatre in Denver then this shooting wouldn't have happened or there would have been less casualties. I'm sorry this is ludicrous to me, the mass shooter has the initiative and the commitment to his plan, you know the one that involves killing everyone. You get some jacka%% with a gun and a hero complex who has little idea of what he's doing, fill him with a bunch of adrenaline and all you might get is a shootout where innocent people get killed, oh sure you might get the criminal, but I will always put the money on the guy who has the initiative, the planning and the determination to mass murder or rob a liquor store or whatever. On top of that the main mission in the face of a mass murderer is to protect lives, but if you have a yahoo with a gun playing Sherriff Lobo instead of finding a way to get people to a safe spot and maybe barricade it and slow down the attacker more lives are lost.

People argue with me, while what about the Parliament Shooting that was a guy with a gun battling it out with a whacko intent on mass murder. But that guy, was trained, knew his environment and was ready for this eventuality.

Frankly the only way to circumvent the second amendment is to force gun manufactures to make one kind of gun available for civilians (Flintlocks) and one available for the police and military. The second amendment gives you the right to bear arms, but it certainly doesn't define the type of arms. I don't see anywhere where the arms are definable as semi automatic or automatic fire arms with large capacity magazines.

Semi Automatic or automatic weapons and high capacity magazines and rocket launchers and automatic handguns are not protected under the constitution, they are protected by industry, lobby and governments, and that's where the mindset needs to change.

Frankly you can't seize firearms now. But what you can do is put ultimate responsibility on the legal owners by saying if that gun is used in a crime either by yourself or someone else, you bear the responsibility for it. We'll it was stolen they will say. Then the question has to come up, how the hell did you have it stored, because you're responsible for securing your fire arms.

If you use a illegal gun in a crime its good bye freedom for ever.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Having guns on the street is basically no different than have a "kill switch" on you. If someone invented a non-firearm device that could be concealed and be used to random kill someone with the push of a button, it would be outlawed immediately.

But what if it was also kind of fun to blow up inanimate objects with as well? Could we make it legal then?

[GreenLantern2814]

Originally Posted by llwhiteoutll

One round with one pull of the trigger is one round with one pull of the trigger, regardless of the action required to cycle the action. With practice, you can get very, very quick with even a bolt action. Often with better accuracy than a semi. Semi-auto vs. pump action vs. bolt action, it's not going to make a difference if someone decides to break the law using a firearm.

Either way, the comment I made was regarding the ridiculous assertion of many people that having a pistol grip or small piece of metal to reduce muzzle flash or cover a hot barrel suddenly turns a rifle from a "sporting gun" to an "assault weapon".



I'd say that increasing access to good mental health care would do a lot to decrease the largest contributor to the gun death numbers (suicide). Followed by actually addressing the social and economic reasons people are committing crimes in the first place. If you got rid of all guns overnight, people will still kill themselves and each other. The drive should be to reduce those things happening by any means.

How about we start by restricting the circulation of the preferred thing that people use to kill themselves and others?

And yes, semi auto vs pump vs bolt is going to make a huge difference when someone decides to break the law. I don't care how good some American Sniper type can get with one - the general, gun-toting masses aren't that good with their guns. As evidenced by the constant killing of the wrong people.

[llwhiteoutll]

Originally Posted by ernie

Pretty sure a lay person being able to fire 13 bullets a second with a high capacity clip is more dangerous than a guy who can fire a couple a second and has to reload after 8 shots.

heck the fastest shooter in the world can fire off about 8 bullets a second. A semi-auto AR-15 fires 13.3 a second.

This is ridiculous. You seriously can't believe this.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Semi Automatic or automatic weapons and high capacity magazines and rocket launchers and automatic handguns are not protected under the constitution, they are protected by industry, lobby and governments, and that's where the mindset needs to change.

Automatic firearms are all heavily regulated under the NFA. Not only that, but the cost is extremely prohibitive in acquire NFA firearms or devices.

As for rocket launchers, good luck getting the ATF to approve that transfer to a civilian.

As for "high capacity magazines", what do you consider "high capacity"?

[CroFlames]

CaptainCrunch

Ok, how about the whole, if a person had a gun in that church where those poor people were shot, or the theatre in Denver then this shooting wouldn't have happened or there would have been less casualties. I'm sorry this is ludicrous to me, the mass shooter has the initiative and the commitment to his plan, you know the one that involves killing everyone. You get some jacka%% with a gun and a hero complex who has little idea of what he's doing, fill him with a bunch of adrenaline and all you might get is a shootout where innocent people get killed, oh sure you might get the criminal, but I will always put the money on the guy who has the initiative, the planning and the determination to mass murder or rob a liquor store or whatever. On top of that the main mission in the face of a mass murderer is to protect lives, but if you have a yahoo with a gun playing Sherriff Lobo instead of finding a way to get people to a safe spot and maybe barricade it and slow down the attacker more lives are lost.

Recently in Las Vegas, there was a couple who went on a rampage and I believe killed two cops in a coffee shop before terrorizing a nearby WalMart. There was a citizen with a conceal-carry at the Walmart and had his firearm with him. You know what happened? He pointed it at one shooter and told them to stand down. The other shooter shot him in the head from behind.

A police tactical unit was what finally ended the situation, not some guy who thought his conceal carry would save his life. Unfortunately he died, but NRA sure didn't pipe up after that occasion.

There needs to be a culture shift in America, and a major one at that. I oft think to myself how ironic it is to hear all this anti-Russian rhetoric in mainstream media, yet America certainly is one of the most backward countries around. Poverty, crime, corruption, gun culture, religious zealots, the imperial system...

[Igottago]

^^You mean civilians with guns don't just turn into Rambo and save the day when bad guys go on shooting sprees? Who knew?

There's been some great discussion in this thread since the last tragic mass shooting, and still not a single convincing argument by pro-gun folks as to why the status quo in the US is better than some form of gun control.

At some point people need to concede they don't really have a point to stand on other than they want to live out their macho militaristic fantasies by purchasing high powered assault weapons because they think they're neat.

[Displaced Flames fan]

Semi-Automatics require a trigger squeeze for each shot. If you can move your index finger in a trigger motion 13.3 times per second there are much more interesting things you can do with that talent.

Automatics fire multiple rounds with 1 squeeze of the trigger. Maybe the AR-15 can fire 13.3 rounds as an automatic?

In any case, civilians should not have automatic weapons. Limit the clip capacity for semi-autos. I'm fine with that too.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Semi-Automatics require a trigger squeeze for each shot. If you can move your index finger in a trigger motion 13.3 times per second there are much more interesting things you can do with that talent.

Automatics fire multiple rounds with 1 squeeze of the trigger. Maybe the AR-15 can fire 13.3 rounds as an automatic?

In any case, civilians should not have automatic weapons. Limit the clip capacity for semi-autos. I'm fine with that too.

You are correct with your rate of fire analysis and your joke.

However, I think it's basically impossible for a citizen to obtain a fully automatic assault rifle (like an M-16). The vast majority of assault rifles you see in the USA are a variant of the AR-15 semi auto. The AK-47 variants you see in the USA are specifically designed for the American market to be semi-auto. I could be mistaken here, but this is what I've come to generally understand.

I don't hate guns mind you. I think it's great fun to hit the range, but I'm obviously a big proponent of controlling the supply chain a lot more.

My dream gun is the Stg-44; the original automatic assault rifle. Next to impossible to acquire, but I guess I just have a taste for the finer things in life

Next on the list is the 9mm Mauser Luger, which can be yours for the low, low price of $10k USD haha. Fairly easy to acquire rare SS versions that were stolen during the invasion and brought to the USA and sold.

[Acey]

I don't get this whole Confederate flag thing. Banning it isn't going to make racist people any less racist or prevent another mass shooting like Charleston. There's bigger fish to fry in terms of curb gun violence, and it has nothing to do with a flag.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Acey

I don't get this whole Confederate flag thing. Banning it isn't going to make racist people any less racist or prevent another mass shooting like Charleston. There's bigger fish to fry in terms of curb gun violence, and it has nothing to do with a flag.

You're totally misunderstanding. No one is banning it, just don't have the government fly a racist flag seems like a reasonable request.

It's not meant to prevent a shooting, so I'm not sure why you think that's relevant.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

You're totally misunderstanding. No one is banning it, just don't have the government fly a racist flag seems like a reasonable request.

It's not meant to prevent a shooting, so I'm not sure why you think that's relevant.

The question may be due to the news that a bunch of Canadian retailers, as well as EBay, have announced they are pulling confederate merchandise off the shelves.

It is a bit of a reactionary response and I'm not sure if it will do anything, but perhaps something is better than nothing.