General Forums >> General Discussions >> Gun Control

+4

Gun Control

1,938 Views
59 Replies Flag as inappropriate
Elk_max50

97 posts

back to top

Posted over 1 year ago

 

I have read the thread about the Colorado shootings. I enjoyed the interesting posts. I would like to go in a different direction. Everyone is a LEO or someone who supports LEO's. I would like to get everyones thoughts on this aspect of things.


There are people out there using this tragedy as a platform for gun control and the banning of automatic weapons. I personally do not understand why any person would need to purchase a AK47.  My intent is not to discuss the second amendment in this thread, however I do not want the government telling me what I can and cannot purchase. If we go down this road....


Then the same people who want to ban weapons and sue the gun manufacturers will end up banning forks and suing Little Debbie to fight the obesity issues in this country. I do not get the connection between banning guns and saving lives. More people die in automobile accidents in this country each year and yet they are not trying to ban cars.  Thoughts?

Crumb_passin_thru_02_1__max50

2134 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

I don't think I really have the energy for a full debate, especially since this is one of those issues people don't change their minds on, and people tend to just yank horse manure from the blogosphere to support their specious arguments.


A few thoughts regarding the discussions I've been in so far:


I will never believe the 2nd Amendment means civilians should be able to own assault rifles, high capacity magazines, etcetera. I don't believe even a room FULL of CCW-holders would've made a substantial difference in a darkened theater with a shooter covered head to toe in ballistic protection, carrying an AR-15 with a 100-round magazine, plus a 12-gauge shotgun and an automatic pistol, deploying OC cannisters, etcetera. Also, to those that would boycott locations that prohibit CCW--don't let the door hit you on the way out.


Here's an interesting article I found and posted to another discussion:


http://tinyurl.com/six-facts-about-gun-control


 




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Wredcedar_max50

1229 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

Since Holmes AR-15 promptly jammed, and He did virtually all his shooting with handguns and shotgun, debating the merits of assault rifle ban is of no value.  Had Holmes not been able to buy an AR-15, do you think this would have prevented this tradegy or would he have done it like Virginia Tech, just with handguns.


 

Crumb_passin_thru_02_1__max50

2134 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

I've not seen any reports from news sources saying it jammed "promptly" or that the majority of his shots came from other weapons. My impression was that it did jam at some point, and if it didn't jam the tragedy would've been compounded with double, triple, or higher number of deaths. "Promptly" I guess is a relative term.




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Img_3413_sq90_max50

703 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

As I have heard said before having stricter gun laws won't work as it is illegal to commit murder and this individual (won't say his name) murdered 12 people and injured numerous others. As has also been said  before if guns were illegal he would have found another way to do it. This is ibvious this time as he tried to kill law enforcement at his apartment with bombs. I have told several people that if he did not have access to guns I think he would have gone with a bomb and either become a suicide bomber or just planted one and left. All he would have had to have done is put one in his backpack. In this case he has shown that he would have killed whether he had a gun or not.

Crumb_passin_thru_02_1__max50

2134 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

I have a feeling very few people will read the link I posted above. I really get tired of having a "discussion" when it's not really a discussion at all it's just a bunch of hard-headed people (myself included) talking at each other and not to each other.




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Wredcedar_max50

1229 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

Having strict gun control in Norway didn't do them a lot of good in 2011, when Breivik killed something like 69 and wounded many others, and I believe he also did the bomb that killed a dozen or so and wounded over 200.

Crumb_passin_thru_02_1__max50

2134 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

Let's not forget that Europe has some special problems of their own. One country might have gun control, while another might not. It's rather difficult to enforce gun control on a continent in that situation. And Norway isn't apparently as strict on guns as you might believe. Read the wiki article on the Oslo shooting starting here:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks#Failed_attempt_to_buy_weapons_in_Prague


 




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Female_bodysurfer_max50

7532 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

In its entirety -  from mz66's 'doubt anyone read it' link to blogger Ezra Klein's article.  Replete with behemoth graphs Monster won't permit resizing.  You'll have to look closely at the source. 


Too bad Mexico isn't shown in the first graph.  Mexico's version of 'right to keep and bear arms' requires registration of all personal firearms with the Mexican army.  Most firearms above .22 caliber are categorized as 'military weapons'. You buy all your firearms at a government-owned store and ammunition purchase amounts are strictly limited.  There's a reason for all that...control.


Mexico's history of many bloody revolutions is probably still in the back of the minds of most of her politicians.  Years ago, at risk of arrest and imprisonment, you used to hear the sound of rifle reports all over town as the heads of  households fired a single round  into the air from his rifle at the stroke of midnight every New Year's Eve.  A little reminder from the people about revolution - "It could come back." 


Now that there's that pesky problem of drug-cartels terrorizing towns and running the show in a lot of places, they say you don't hear those reports.  


Felipe Calderon recently admonished the US to tighten gun control due to the flow of weapons into Mexico from the US.  Wonder what the average Mexican citizen thinks of gun control now their homes and public places have been overwhelmed by lawless terrorist gun thugs?


 


Six facts about guns, violence, and gun control


Posted by Ezra Klein on July 23, 2012 at 11:51 am


    Smaller Text Larger Text Text Size

    Print

    Reprints


    Share:

    More »


The aftermath of the Aurora, Colorado shootings has been thick with calls to avoid “politicizing” the tragedy. That is code, essentially, for “don’t talk about reforming our gun control laws.”


Let’s be clear: This is a form of politicization. When political actors construct a political argument that threatens political consequences if other political actors pursue a certain political outcome, that is, almost by definition, a politicization of the issue. It’s just a form of politicization favoring those who prefer the status quo to stricter gun control laws.


That said, it’s important to be clear about what Aurora is: A tragedy that may or may not tell us anything useful about the general trends in guns and violence in the United States. And so this post is about those trends, some of which may surprise you.


1. America is an unusually violent country. But we’re not as violent as we used to be.


Kieran Healy, a sociologist at Duke University, made this graph of “deaths due to assault” in the United States and other developed countries. We are a clear outlier.



 


 


 


America is far more violent than other developed nations, but the violence is declining.


As Healy writes, “The most striking features of the data are (1) how much more violent the U.S. is than other OECD countries (except possibly Estonia and Mexico, not shown here), and (2) the degree of change—and recently, decline—there has been in the U.S. time series considered by itself.”


2. The South is the most violent region in the United States.


In a subsequent post, Healy drilled further into the numbers and looked at deaths due to assault in different regions of the country. Just as the United States is a clear outlier in the international context, the South is a clear outlier in the national context:



 


3. Gun ownership in the United States is declining overall.


“For all the attention given to America’s culture of guns, ownership of firearms is at or near all-time lows,” writes political scientist Patrick Egan. The decline is most evident on the General Social Survey, though it also shows up on polling from Gallup, as you can see on this graph:



 


 


 



The bottom line, Egan writes, is that “long-term trends suggest that we are in fact currently experiencing a waning culture of guns and violence in the United States. ”


4. More guns tend to mean more homicide.


The Harvard Injury Control Research Center assessed the literature on guns and homicide and found that there’s substantial evidence that indicates more guns means more murders. This holds true whether you’re looking at different countries or different state., Citations here.


5. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.


Last year, economist Richard Florida dove deep into the correlations between gun deaths and other kinds of social indicators. Some of what he found was, perhaps, unexpected: Higher populations, more stress, more immigrants, and more mental illness were not correlated with more deaths from gun violence. But one thing he found was, perhaps, perfectly predictable: States with tighter gun control laws appear to have fewer gun-related deaths. The disclaimer here is that correlation is not causation. But correlations can be suggestive:



“The map overlays the map of firearm deaths above with gun control restrictions by state,” explains Florida. “It highlights states which have one of three gun control restrictions in place – assault weapons’ bans, trigger locks, or safe storage requirements. Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation. Though the sample sizes are small, we find substantial negative correlations between firearm deaths and states that ban assault weapons (-.45), require trigger locks (-.42), and mandate safe storage requirements for guns (-.48).”


6. Gun control is not politically popular.


Since 1990, Gallup has been asking Americans whether they think gun control laws should be stricter. The answer, increasingly, is that they don’t. “The percentage in favor of making the laws governing the sale of firearms ‘more strict’ fell from 78% in 1990 to 62% in 1995, and 51% in 2007,” reports Gallup. “In the most recent reading, Gallup in 2010 found 44% in favor of stricter laws. In fact, in 2009 and again last year, the slight majority said gun laws should either remain the same or be made less strict.”



 


 

Wredcedar_max50

1229 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

Woukld like to know what Richard Rlordia bases his statements on, look at the 2 cities with some of the strictest gon control laws, New Yourk and chicage, and check out gun violence there.


Notice no countries (other than the US are named in the graph), wonder where Mexico falls.


The bottom line IMO.  People like Harris and Breivik find a way to accomplish their goals regardless of laws.

Crumb_passin_thru_02_1__max50

2134 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

Cedardale says ...



The bottom line IMO.  People like Harris and Breivik find a way to accomplish their goals regardless of laws.



Not guaranteed, though. If we can make it more challenging for them to do so, that's a good first step...in my opinion.


 




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Img_2238_max50

218 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

I really think if someone is going to kill they will find a way, If not by a gun then some other means. The guy in this Aurora theater was very intelligent, If he would have wanted he could of went with another way.


The main thing for everyone to remember is that is is not the gun that killed but the person behind the gun. Just like it wasn't the car that killed but the person behind the wheel.


I myself don't see the need for an AR-15, It just wouldn't make a great hunting riffle and cost too much to shoot. However, I know a lot of people who like it for recreation. Now as far as my Glock goes that's a different story.


To me the bottom line is I will do what I need to protect myself, my family, my friends and those around me know matter if I know them or not, by whatever means is available to me at the time. There are bad people around us and those people will do whatever they can to harm others.


Keep the gun- Get rid of the abuser

Photo_user_blank_big

35 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

I definitely acknowledge that not everyone should carry a gun, not everyone should have access to large amounts of ammunition, and not everyone should have access to assault weapons (whether they be semi auto or fully automatic). So I do acknowledge some types of restriction and control. For example, the day I believe convicted felons should be allowed to carry guns, is the day pigs fly out of my butt.


That being said, I am very pro second ammendment. It is my personal belief that a responsible citizen who goes through the appropriate steps (a.k.a. criminal background check, an IN DEPTH firearms course that actually teaches you something other than how to release the clip) should have every right to own, and carry a pistol on his person should he desire. I also see no problems with shotguns for home defense. Does that stance allow some people to have guns that shouldn't get them? Sure, some will always slip through the cracks. But it is my opinion that those who follow the steps and register their guns are usually law abiding citizens who, and the criminals are usually the ones who purchase them illegally.


Now of course I fully expect someone to point out that Holmes in fact purchased his weapons legally. I do agree that he shouldn't have been able to purchase the assault weapon and all of the ammo for it, but I don't think that this situation makes a good case for tighter gun control. Aside from his mother who claims she wasn't surprised, there was no indication (as of yet, anyway) that he was anything other than a normal citizen looking to excercise his second ammendment right.


No I don't think all citizens should purchase and carry weapons. Not everyone is suited to it, and many are not trained to a competent level to use them. But there are in fact some citizens who are trained well enough to carry and should. I have no intention of arguing whether or not a CCW permit holder could've have stopped holmes. But with a police response time of usually a couple minutes at least, I think the right citizens need to take their security and their safety (as well as that of their families) into their own hands.

Elk_max50

97 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 


Felipe Calderon recently admonished the US to tighten gun control due to the flow of weapons into Mexico from the US.  Wonder what the average Mexican citizen thinks of gun control now their homes and public places have been overwhelmed by lawless terrorist gun thugs?


Not that I am trying to start a conspiracy theory, but I wonder how all these guns are getting transported from America to Mexico? I wonder if it this is not just another ploy to ask for tighter Gun control in America?


 


Wredcedar_max50

1229 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

CATMguy45 says ...



Felipe Calderon recently admonished the US to tighten gun control due to the flow of weapons into Mexico from the US.  Wonder what the average Mexican citizen thinks of gun control now their homes and public places have been overwhelmed by lawless terrorist gun thugs?


Not that I am trying to start a conspiracy theory, but I wonder how all these guns are getting transported from America to Mexico? I wonder if it this is not just another ploy to ask for tighter Gun control in America?


 



Maybe Felipe Calderon should worry more about the flow of guns from the Mexican army to the cartels.

Elk_max50

97 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

mz66 says ...



I have a feeling very few people will read the link I posted above. I really get tired of having a "discussion" when it's not really a discussion at all it's just a bunch of hard-headed people (myself included) talking at each other and not to each other.



mz66 - After reading the article there is one thing I did not see. When looking at the states that do not have gun controls what is the overall crime rate? Could it be that the reason they have a higher firearms death rate is that people are using guns to protect themselvs and prevent violent crime. I can tell you here in Wyoming B&E is not as high as it is in New York.

My_kawi_zx6r_jan_2012_-_copy_max50

161 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

 On the phone right now, so not gonna dig it up but, a couple days ago I saw a study that showed the U.K. has a violent crime rate involving knives that is twice as high as the violent crime rate involving guns in the U.S.


 


Rule 1) End the day in better condition than you started.

Rule 2) Be smarter, faster, stronger, tougher, meaner than any son of a bitch who tries to make you violate rule 1.

2012-09-24_22-41-56_408_max50

167 posts

back to top
+2

Rated +2 | Posted over 1 year ago

 

Fact: 94.5% of all statistics are completly fabricated.


Fact: 99% of all people killed by guns in the US have died as a direct result of being shot.....by a gun. 1% were struck.....by a gun


Fact: 100% of all gun owners in the US, own guns.


Fact: Bullets fired from a gun are very dangerous


Fact Knives kill more people in EU countries every year, than guns do


Fact: 100% of all people killed by knives in the EU died as a direct result of being stabbed....by a knife.


So what can we learn from this?


Nothing, I was just being a wise guy


But, honestly, Knives in the hands of a killer will, kill. So will guns, baseball bats, tasers, rocks, sticks, pipes, well you get the picture. Do guns make killing more convienient? Sure they do, but they don't create a killer. Society does that.


Canada has the same number of guns as the US does, yet they are much less violent. This leads me to believe that it is not the gun ownership that causes the problem. This brings us back to society.


Does poverty turn people into killers? I've known many poor people, none of them every shot anyone. I grew up on the outskirts of Newark NJ. I didn't know anyone who owned a gun. Seriously. How safe of a place have you heard of Newark being?


Recently on Fort Bragg, we had a kid kill his BN Commander following a safety brief, in front of his entire BN, then he turned the gun on himself. I was on scene within minutes of the shooting. The BN Commander had no defense against the shooting. It was from damn close range too. If the kid had only a knife, chances are he would have stabbed him to death as well. The only thing is now we would be caring for the killer in one of our jails since it is difficult to stab yourself in the head. Also, the fact that he used a gun, rather than a knife caused the people spectating to remain as spectators, and verbal force users, rather than immediatly tackling the guy and disarming him.


So what causes the US to be a very violent place? Well if you ask me, there are several reasons:


1: We are simply a violent culture, check out our films and video games. 


2: We place a HUGE amount of value on being the "Winner". Those lesser evolved humans seem to see killing their rivals, as winning.


3: We have created a third cast in our own society consisting of the undereducated and poor who are more likely to resort to crime to provide them with their needs. 


4: Some cities have developed a welfare state where citizens cannot achieve anything and are reliant on state programs to provide for their needs. Their wants can only be fulfilled through crime, since aquiring a paying job, would mean the loss of benefits, and would result in a lower quality of life.


5: Drugs, Infestiation of drug users, who will resort to anything to get their fix.


6: Money leaving our Country faster then it is comming in. Immigrant workers sending money back to their home countries, companies outsourcing labor and manufacturing, The Fed Reserve auctioning off our natl Debt to the highest bidding Country. 


Ok, I'll stop there. Wow, I started off making a light humorous post, and ended up with that......


Well, as you can tell, I see many issues that I believe must be addressed prior to our being able to tackle the gun problem, since it is not a gun problem at all, it is a lawless killer problem we have. And the fix is not so easy, clean, or politically correct.


 


 


In a world where there are Sheep and Wolves,
I am the Sheepdog.
Ranger Up!

I am NOT a hero
but I know a few

Rafngreenblack_max50

885 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil. And while the latter can not be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles." Col. Jeff Cooper


And scjohnk- Excellent post.

Female_bodysurfer_max50

7532 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

Yup MH557 and I'm reeeally tired of the US comparing itself all the time to Great Britain's idea of what sort of  "freedoms" citizens should enjoy.  We have a Constitution.  We wrote it after we kicked the lobsterbacks back to England.  Let's keep that in mind, shall we? lol

Duke_max50

318 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

Ladies and gentlemen, guns are out there. As they are already out there to think for one minute that banning a type of firearms, magazines of high capacity, or banning firearms completely is going to stop gun violence in this country you are sadly mistaken and very naive'. See, to get someone to give up their guns, if ever outlawed, would require them to "obey the law". By definition criminals do NOT obey the law. Therefore they will not give up their guns. All you will do is create more victims. You can choose to not believe this but you would be fooling yourself.


The only other thing I would like to say is, for God's sake, stop calling his rifle an "assault weapon". It was not. Again, by definition, and assault weapon must be a "select fire" weapon. That means it MUST be capable of automatic fire. His was not. It is a rifle, period. That is all I have to say about it so I now return you to you regularly scheduled debate.


If you can put some ice in a glass of bourbon I can drink it. If you can't I can still drink it.

Th_policeavatar_2__max50

734 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

DoubleT213 says ...



Ladies and gentlemen, guns are out there. As they are already out there to think for one minute that banning a type of firearms, magazines of high capacity, or banning firearms completely is going to stop gun violence in this country you are sadly mistaken and very naive'. See, to get someone to give up their guns, if ever outlawed, would require them to "obey the law". By definition criminals do NOT obey the law. Therefore they will not give up their guns. All you will do is create more victims. You can choose to not believe this but you would be fooling yourself.


The only other thing I would like to say is, for God's sake, stop calling his rifle an "assault weapon". It was not. Again, by definition, and assault weapon must be a "select fire" weapon. That means it MUST be capable of automatic fire. His was not. It is a rifle, period. That is all I have to say about it so I now return you to you regularly scheduled debate.



 


 


 


This^


""Life is a storm.. You will bask in the sunlight one moment, be shattered on the rocks the next. What makes you a man is what you do when that storm comes"
Alexander Dumas-The Count of Monte Christo

Img_0010__2__max50

2476 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

DoubleT213 says ...



Ladies and gentlemen, guns are out there. As they are already out there to think for one minute that banning a type of firearms, magazines of high capacity, or banning firearms completely is going to stop gun violence in this country you are sadly mistaken and very naive'. See, to get someone to give up their guns, if ever outlawed, would require them to "obey the law". By definition criminals do NOT obey the law. Therefore they will not give up their guns. All you will do is create more victims. You can choose to not believe this but you would be fooling yourself.


The only other thing I would like to say is, for God's sake, stop calling his rifle an "assault weapon". It was not. Again, by definition, and assault weapon must be a "select fire" weapon. That means it MUST be capable of automatic fire. His was not. It is a rifle, period. That is all I have to say about it so I now return you to you regularly scheduled debate.



Pretty much sums things up nicely.


PL MENTORING TEAM MEMBER

"Don't underestimate the drawing power of the Garden State." From the film "Dogma"

Trying to stay sane in an insane world...

Wredcedar_max50

1229 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

If I remember correctly, in the virginia Tech. shooting the Glock 19 had the 'civilian' 10 round magazines, not the high capacity 17 round magazines tht can be purchased for it.  Not having high capacity mags. didn't seem to have much effect.

Crumb_passin_thru_02_1__max50

2134 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

Cedardale says ...



If I remember correctly, in the virginia Tech. shooting the Glock 19 had the 'civilian' 10 round magazines, not the high capacity 17 round magazines tht can be purchased for it.  Not having high capacity mags. didn't seem to have much effect.



Really? How would you know it had no effect? I realize it gets numbing when so many people die, but are you claiming that no more people would've died if the Virginia Tech shooter had high capacity magazines?




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Wredcedar_max50

1229 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

mz66 says ...



Cedardale says ...



If I remember correctly, in the virginia Tech. shooting the Glock 19 had the 'civilian' 10 round magazines, not the high capacity 17 round magazines tht can be purchased for it.  Not having high capacity mags. didn't seem to have much effect.



Really? How would you know it had no effect? I realize it gets numbing when so many people die, but are you claiming that no more people would've died if the Virginia Tech shooter had high capacity magazines?



What I was trying to say was that not having high capacity mags. did not prevent this from happening, i believe that high capacity glock 19 magazines were available in VA but the shooter did not have any.  I'm saying tht arguements that not having access to high capacity mags would prevent shooting is not valid,

Crumb_passin_thru_02_1__max50

2134 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

 I wasn't aware of those arguments. I do think high capacity magazines make them more likely to acquire more kills in a shorter period of time.




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

2012-09-24_22-41-56_408_max50

167 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

mz66 says ...



Cedardale says ...



If I remember correctly, in the virginia Tech. shooting the Glock 19 had the 'civilian' 10 round magazines, not the high capacity 17 round magazines tht can be purchased for it.  Not having high capacity mags. didn't seem to have much effect.



Really? How would you know it had no effect? I realize it gets numbing when so many people die, but are you claiming that no more people would've died if the Virginia Tech shooter had high capacity magazines?



 


I agree completly that the capacity of the magazines, most likely, had absolutly no effect on the number of people killed, or potentially kiled. Let's face it 10 rounds is alot. You can do alot of damage with 10 rounds. 


How long does a magazine change take? No more than 1-2 seconds if the person has practiced at all. 4 seconds tops if you have to fish around in a pocket for it.


The rate of fire in the VA tech shootings was generally not higher than a round every few seconds at it's highest. Therefor, we can logicly conclude that the capacity of the magazines would have no effect on the shooter's rate of fire. 


The only effect that the capacity of the magazines would have on the shoter would be the requirement to carry more magazines, or force a magazine reload session during lulls in combat, both of which would present no real advantage to the victims. 


On a second topic, the AR-15 that was used in the Colorado shooting was a comercially availible AR-15 Semi-Automatic rifle. The same kind you can buy at wal-mart. This is NOT the M-4, or M-16A3 rifle. There is no automatic fire. Not that this would have made any difference. He purchased a 100 Round drum for it online, and used crappy foreign ammo. I speculate that these two lead directly to the jamming of the weapon. The drums cause frequent misfeeds in the M4, which is why we dont use them in the Military. The ammo, most likely South African .223, also causes malfunctions. A higher likelyhood of hang fires, and on occasion runaway fires, if a mil-spec firing pin is installed in the bolt. 


This shooting would have been just as deadly, had he walked in with a .308, or an AK-47. In fact, it would have been probably worse with an AK-47 since they dont jam as easily.


In a world where there are Sheep and Wolves,
I am the Sheepdog.
Ranger Up!

I am NOT a hero
but I know a few

Crumb_passin_thru_02_1__max50

2134 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

Well, every case is different I imagine. In Colorado, it was reported that there was a steady stream of bullets with only a brief pause when the rifle jammed. I am not an expert, but it seems logical to me that any pause is an opportunity for the shooter to be disarmed (by tackling, if necessary) or for potential victims who are pinned down to escape, and that each additional pause (reload) is an additional opportunity. Also, it adds more instances where the shooter has to make the conscious decision: am I going to reload and kill more?




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Crumb_passin_thru_02_1__max50

2134 posts

back to top
Rate

Rate This | Posted over 1 year ago

 

Cedardale, the Virginia Tech shooter had both 10-round and 15-round magazines. In fact, the report of the panel charged with investigating the incident included this in their key findings: 


KEY FINDINGS


Cho was able to purchase guns and ammunition from two registered gun dealers with no problem, despite his mental history. Cho was able to kill 31 people including himself at Norris Hall in about 10 minutes with the semiautomatic handguns at his disposal. Having the ammunition in large capacity magazines facilitated his killing spree.  There is confusion on the part of universities as to what their rights are for setting policy regarding guns on campus.


From Chapter VI of Report of the Review Panel: Mass Shootings at Virginia Tech (  http://goo.gl/wkkjI  )


Full Report (  http://goo.gl/8VH9h  )


Note: both of the above documents require PDF reader software (a lot of computers have this pre-installed these days, but many do not)


 




Bessie Braddock: “Sir, you are drunk.”
Churchill: “Madam, you are ugly. In the morning, I shall be sober.”

Next Page >