what type of gun nut are you?

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Any change in anything potentially changes the dynamics of everything.

Anything that had slowed him down/temporarily disarmed could have allowed responders to get there before he had done as much damage; could have allowed adult school personnel to intercede while he was temporarily disarmed while reloading, etc...

You don't know WHAT would have happened, had he not had access to as lethal a firearm...

how is an AR more lethal? All it takes is 1 bullet. And despite what many people think, the 2 seconds it takes to reload a gun is not enough time for people in that situation to respond rationally. A shotgun, for instance, you could reload 1 shell at a time and have a firing rate around 1 shot every 2-3 seconds or so.

Also, using the same logic you've used above you could justify arming teachers with either guns or Tasers because "Anything that had slowed him down/temporarily disarmed could have allowed responders to get there before he had done as much damage"

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Unable to prevent all crime does not mean ineffective at preventing crime. We don't know how bad things would be without our existing laws.



BS. Even if I'm unarmed and getting shot at, one of the factors that impacts whether or not I get hit is what kind of gun is being shot at me.


I disagree with your assertion that these incidents will happen with the same frequency regardless of what the gun laws are. How difficult something is to do does change how often people do it.

We do know how bad things would be without the existing laws, because the assault weapons ban lasted from 1994-2004. Assault weapons were legal to sell (new) before and after that 10 year span. So We know exactly what it would have been like without the law because we're without the law as we stand. These types of incidents have progressed for the last 30 years, consistently before, during and now after the ban.

The only thing that determines if you get hit or not is if the gunman is a good shot, how long he has to commit his act and how much ammo he brought with him. Unless a gunman wants to kill 400 people, the crimes we're seeing could have been committed with almost any modern weapon. If you want to kill 30 unarmed kids in a room and the shooter gets to the point where he's in a room, with a gun with 30 kids and a teacher, the only thing that matters at that point is how close the cops are or how close the nearest person with a gun, or less than lethal device, is.

You are right in that we need to make it more difficult for these events to happen. How difficult they are determines how many happen....but the question is how do you make them more difficult? As I've been saying, I don't think banning AR's with 30 round mags makes them more difficult at all. And even if it did slightly make them more difficult, I'd say it's more a minor inconvenience than a true layer of difficulty.

 

[redandguilty]

how is an AR more lethal? All it takes is 1 bullet. And despite what many people think, the 2 seconds it takes to reload a gun is not enough time for people in that situation to respond rationally. A shotgun, for instance, you could reload 1 shell at a time and have a firing rate around 1 shot every 2-3 seconds or so.

Also, using the same logic you've used above you could justify arming teachers with either guns or Tasers because "Anything that had slowed him down/temporarily disarmed could have allowed responders to get there before he had done as much damage"

If you were in a crowd of people, and someone was trying to shoot as many of you as possible while you're all trying to get away, would you prefer the shooter to have an AR or a revolver?

 

[byco42]

how is an AR more lethal? All it takes is 1 bullet. And despite what many people think, the 2 seconds it takes to reload a gun is not enough time for people in that situation to respond rationally. A shotgun, for instance, you could reload 1 shell at a time and have a firing rate around 1 shot every 2-3 seconds or so.

Also, using the same logic you've used above you could justify arming teachers with either guns or Tasers because "Anything that had slowed him down/temporarily disarmed could have allowed responders to get there before he had done as much damage"

Don't be so obtuse. There's a reason why Marines are issued M1s and not 45s.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

If you were in a crowd of people, and someone was trying to shoot as many of you as possible while you're all trying to get away, would you prefer the shooter to have an AR or a revolver?

Not sure it matters. Because if someone intended to do that type of killing I'm guessing they wouldn't just come with 1 gun. A shotgun into a crowd with 5 shots of buck-shot would probably do more damage than a rifle with 30.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Don't be so obtuse. There's a reason why Marines are issued M1s and not 45s.

And in the military when the other guy has a gun - 2-3 second matters. I'm not doubting that. But we're talking about a population of unarmed people, not a warzone where both sides are fairly equally matched. And that's what most people fail to understand. If there is absolutely no resistance, it really doesn't matter what type of modern firearm they have.

 

[redandguilty]

Not sure it matters. Because if someone intended to do that type of killing I'm guessing they wouldn't just come with 1 gun. A shotgun into a crowd with 5 shots of buck-shot would probably do more damage than a rifle with 30.

"Not sure it matters"?!

 

[tinselwolverine]

how is an AR more lethal? All it takes is 1 bullet.

To kill 26 people?

And despite what many people think, the 2 seconds it takes to reload a gun is not enough time for people in that situation to respond rationally. A shotgun, for instance, you could reload 1 shell at a time and have a firing rate around 1 shot every 2-3 seconds or so.

And you know this how? Did you ever time Adam Lanza in reloading a non-assault firearm?


You have a dossier on every adult who was at the school that includes reflex/response testing under stress?

Certainly many of the adult personnel seemed to react rationally, hiding kids and so forth, in the situation that they were presented with - you don't KNOW what anyone would have done in those 2 second intervals; or what the intervals would have even been.

Also, using the same logic you've used above you could justify arming teachers with either guns or Tasers because "Anything that had slowed him down/temporarily disarmed could have allowed responders to get there before he had done as much damage"

Well, people are talking about that.

Actually, it's the unfettered gun rights activists who are starting to beat this drum.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Don't be so obtuse. There's a reason why Marines are issued M1s and not 45s.

I'm beginning to suspect that MB09 has just gone into "full troll mode" to see what responses he can get to outrageous statements.

Not thar he's ever done anything like that before, or anything.

I think I'm done responding to his foolishness.

 

[byco42]

And in the military when the other guy has a gun - 2-3 second matters. I'm not doubting that. But we're talking about a population of unarmed people, not a warzone where both sides are fairly equally matched. And that's what most people fail to understand. If there is absolutely no resistance, it really doesn't matter what type of modern firearm they have.

You are just being idiotic now. It makes all the difference. A guy with an M1 can shoot me from a far greater distance than can a guy with a .38. In extreme close quarters, I rather my assailant HAVE a .38 or any gun over a sharp knife. I have a "shot" at stopping him from shooting me without him making move one. I will get cut if I try to disarm a knife-wielding assailant before he moves on me.

 

[zyxt9]

"Not sure it matters"?!

matters about as much as that school's security system did...all he had to do was shoot out the glass to gain entry.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

To kill 26 people?



And you know this how? Did you ever time Adam Lanza in reloading a non-assault firearm?


You have a dossier on every adult who was at the school that includes reflex/response testing under stress?

Certainly many of the adult personnel seemed to react rationally, hiding kids and so forth, in the situation that they were presented with - you don't KNOW what anyone would have done in those 2 second intervals; or what the intervals would have even been.



Well, people are talking about that.

Actually, it's the unfettered gun rights activists who are starting to beat this drum.

Obviously it takes more than 1 bullet to kill 26 people and not I didn't time his reloading skills, but that can be learned. From the sound of it - he'd been trained on firearms by his mom his entire life. I know this, any normal person can reload a single shot shotgun in about 2 seconds if they have a bag of shotgun shells at the ready. Any average person can reload a revolver in probably the same amount of time with a speed clip: http://hellinahandbasket.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/revolver_reloading.jpg

I do know 1 thing, there were 6 adults between him and the kids and most revolvers shoot 6 times. If he didn't have an AR I assume his, or anyone's, plan would be to take out the adults first. As I said, you take away the AR nothing changes but the way it's carried out. The results are the same.

 

[redandguilty]

I think we've crossed that line where M&B is making arguments that not even he believes.

 

[redandguilty]

matters about as much as that school's security system did...all he had to do was shoot out the glass to gain entry.

You too? You really don't see any difference? If you were running away from someone shooting, you wouldn't care what gun they had?

 

[byco42]

I think we've crossed that line where M&B is making arguments that not even he believes.

Beginning to wonder about his personal mental state, actually. Who would take the time and effort to equivocate the difference between shooting kids with a Glock and a Sig Sauer and state that "the results are the same?"

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

You are just being idiotic now. It makes all the difference. A guy with an M1 can shoot me from a far greater distance than can a guy with a .38. In extreme close quarters, I rather my assailant HAVE a .38 or any gun over a sharp knife. I have a "shot" at stopping him from shooting me without him making move one. I will get cut if I try to disarm a knife-wielding assailant before he moves on me.

And how many of these shootings are happening from 300 yards? If that's the case, then you may have a point. There is a difference in the effective range of any firearm. But if assault rifles were being used to take people out at distances, a hunting rifle could do the same thing. It still doesn't change the fact that given the circumstances of these school shootings the weapon of choice really doesn't matter, no matter what gun they are armed with they would have almost certainly turned out the same way. The shooter accomplishes what they want to accomplish and then they take their own life, or in the case of the theater shooting, walk out and sit in the parking lot to wait for 1st responders.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Beginning to wonder about his personal mental state, actually. Who would take the time and effort to equivocate the difference between shooting kids with a Glock and a Sig Sauer and state that "the results are the same?"

Someone who see the lunacy in people making laws and banning things in reaction to an incident that wouldn't have been prevented even with said laws in place. A man with a shotgun is just as dangerous to a crowd of unarmed people as a man with an AR.

 

[tinselwolverine]

I think we've crossed that line where M&B is making arguments that not even he believes.

Ha, ha...see my post #109...I beat you to it by a nose!

 

[byco42]

And how many of these shootings are happening from 300 yards? If that's the case, then you may have a point. There is a difference in the effective range of any firearm. But if assault rifles were being used to take people out at distances, a hunting rifle could do the same thing. It still doesn't change the fact that given the circumstances of these school shootings the weapon of choice really doesn't matter, no matter what gun they are armed with they would have almost certainly turned out the same way. The shooter accomplishes what they want to accomplish and then they take their own life, or in the case of the theater shooting, walk out and sit in the parking lot to wait for 1st responders.

You've never heard of Charles Whitman? The loon-e-toons in Wixom who hid in overpasses? The D.C. Sniper?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I think we've crossed that line where M&B is making arguments that not even he believes.

No, I truly believe that no matter what he's armed with - he's successful in what he wanted to accomplish that day. He was facing 6 adults and a bunch of kids, all of which had no means of protecting themselves. What is crazy to me is that people believe this wouldn't have happened if he hadn't had access to an assault rifle as if banning assault rifles is the solution to the problem or even remotely related to the problem.