America's Gun Violence

1180181183185186197

Comments

  • pjhawkspjhawks Posts: 8,045
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    come on the boogey man might be coming with 72 friends to take someones house so they need those hundreds of rounds per minute for the 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance something like that might actually occur.  :fearful:   it really is sad.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,031
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    If Sandy Hook couldn't serve as the catalyst... nothing can. 

    A truly shocking mentality from the outside looking in. 
    Between that and Trump, we must look like a bunch of brain-dead savages.

    I noticed you were away for a time, did you have a vacation or just a nice break from the boards?
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • ponytdponytd NashvillePosts: 494
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    Nobody has unrestricted access to those weapons. If you want a fully automatic gun, you have to apply for a specialty license that costs several thousand dollars. An AR/AK that is available for sale will only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. So, I guess if you can physically pull the trigger hundreds of times in a minute, it will fire that many rounds, but I know of no one who can do that.


  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,700
    ponytd said:
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    Nobody has unrestricted access to those weapons. If you want a fully automatic gun, you have to apply for a specialty license that costs several thousand dollars. An AR/AK that is available for sale will only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. So, I guess if you can physically pull the trigger hundreds of times in a minute, it will fire that many rounds, but I know of no one who can do that.


    Someone hip shooting an AR can do 6 to 10 rounds a second pretty easily. 
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,591
    edited June 23
    ponytd said:
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    Nobody has unrestricted access to those weapons. If you want a fully automatic gun, you have to apply for a specialty license that costs several thousand dollars. An AR/AK that is available for sale will only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. So, I guess if you can physically pull the trigger hundreds of times in a minute, it will fire that many rounds, but I know of no one who can do that.


    Someone hip shooting an AR can do 6 to 10 rounds a second pretty easily. 
    Ok, he's right. You can only shoot about 100/minute. Fully auto would actually be inefficient for mass shootings. Much better to have those 30 round mags of an AR-15. But who gives a shit. Semi-auto is plenty deadly and accurate as fuck.

    And then there's this guy.
    <iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/GQpfQd1397E" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

    I can't get these videos to embed anymore for some reason.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • ponytdponytd NashvillePosts: 494
    ponytd said:
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    Nobody has unrestricted access to those weapons. If you want a fully automatic gun, you have to apply for a specialty license that costs several thousand dollars. An AR/AK that is available for sale will only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. So, I guess if you can physically pull the trigger hundreds of times in a minute, it will fire that many rounds, but I know of no one who can do that.


    Someone hip shooting an AR can do 6 to 10 rounds a second pretty easily. 
    a second?  an AR only fires 1 round every time the trigger is pulled.  A human can't pull a trigger that many times in 1 second. If they can, they're going to be wildly inaccurate. A semi-auto rifle is good for about 45-60 rounds per minute, since it takes about 1 second to pull the trigger.
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,596
    ponytd said:
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    Nobody has unrestricted access to those weapons. If you want a fully automatic gun, you have to apply for a specialty license that costs several thousand dollars. An AR/AK that is available for sale will only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. So, I guess if you can physically pull the trigger hundreds of times in a minute, it will fire that many rounds, but I know of no one who can do that.


    Someone hip shooting an AR can do 6 to 10 rounds a second pretty easily. 
    It's a moot point.  Hip firing would most likely lower the death toll in these events in that most of the bullets would be in the ground or ceiling.  You do not see people just spraying bullets from the hip in these mass shootings.  They aim and shoot one trigger pull at a time, which is a much more accurate way of shooting.  In fact, I'm pretty sure the military only uses full auto to suppress fire from those firing back and give the more accurate shooter time to aim and take out targets.  Have there been ANY successful mass shootings where the perp sat back and hipfired 100s of rounds???
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • ponytdponytd NashvillePosts: 494
    ponytd said:
    ponytd said:
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    Nobody has unrestricted access to those weapons. If you want a fully automatic gun, you have to apply for a specialty license that costs several thousand dollars. An AR/AK that is available for sale will only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. So, I guess if you can physically pull the trigger hundreds of times in a minute, it will fire that many rounds, but I know of no one who can do that.


    Someone hip shooting an AR can do 6 to 10 rounds a second pretty easily. 
    a second?  an AR only fires 1 round every time the trigger is pulled.  A human can't pull a trigger that many times in 1 second. If they can, they're going to be wildly inaccurate. A semi-auto rifle is good for about 45-60 rounds per minute, since it takes about 1 second to pull the trigger.
    ok, maybe not 1 second to pull the trigger. you can probably get 2 rounds off in a second. But as tbergs said, it really doesn't matter that much. It's still deadly and even though I'm all for people being able to own as many guns as they want, and they are fun to shoot, there's really not a need for an AR/AK or other semi-auto rifle. I know people say they are great home defense weapons, and that's true, but a shotgun or handgun is just as good. They all accomplish the same thing.
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,596
    edited June 23
    ponytd said:
    ponytd said:
    ponytd said:
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    Nobody has unrestricted access to those weapons. If you want a fully automatic gun, you have to apply for a specialty license that costs several thousand dollars. An AR/AK that is available for sale will only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. So, I guess if you can physically pull the trigger hundreds of times in a minute, it will fire that many rounds, but I know of no one who can do that.


    Someone hip shooting an AR can do 6 to 10 rounds a second pretty easily. 
    a second?  an AR only fires 1 round every time the trigger is pulled.  A human can't pull a trigger that many times in 1 second. If they can, they're going to be wildly inaccurate. A semi-auto rifle is good for about 45-60 rounds per minute, since it takes about 1 second to pull the trigger.
    ok, maybe not 1 second to pull the trigger. you can probably get 2 rounds off in a second. But as tbergs said, it really doesn't matter that much. It's still deadly and even though I'm all for people being able to own as many guns as they want, and they are fun to shoot, there's really not a need for an AR/AK or other semi-auto rifle. I know people say they are great home defense weapons, and that's true, but a shotgun or handgun is just as good. They all accomplish the same thing.
    There are so many arguments among experienced shooters what the best home defense weapon would be and it all boils down to the one that the individual can most reliably handle and use. They make ammo for rifles that penetrate less walls than even shotguns.  A person can get 2 rounds off in a second from any semi-auto firearm.  Are you suggesting all semi-auto firearms should be banned?  That goes well beyond the AK/AR-15 platforms.  Many duck hunting shotguns and deer rifles are semi-auto....
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,031
    Semi-automatic weapons don't need banned, clip and magazine sizes need to be limited.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,596
    I honestly think that the only way you could completely prevent mass shootings or gun violence is to confiscate every firearm in the country (probably impossible).  That may seem funny to hear from a gun rights supporter.  Am I in support of such a measure...absolutely not.  And neither are any of you, right?  Both sides of the platform say that they are against this.  Everything else up to that seems more like a "feel good" measure that wouldn't make much of an impact in the grand picture.  That's just my opinion.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • eddieceddiec Posts: 2,448
    PJPOWER said:
    I honestly think that the only way you could completely prevent mass shootings or gun violence is to confiscate every firearm in the country (probably impossible).  That may seem funny to hear from a gun rights supporter.  Am I in support of such a measure...absolutely not.  And neither are any of you, right?  Both sides of the platform say that they are against this.  Everything else up to that seems more like a "feel good" measure that wouldn't make much of an impact in the grand picture.  That's just my opinion.

    It should not be more difficult to obtain a fishing license than it is to buy a gun.

  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 9,031
    PJPOWER said:
    I honestly think that the only way you could completely prevent mass shootings or gun violence is to confiscate every firearm in the country (probably impossible).  That may seem funny to hear from a gun rights supporter.  Am I in support of such a measure...absolutely not.  And neither are any of you, right?  Both sides of the platform say that they are against this.  Everything else up to that seems more like a "feel good" measure that wouldn't make much of an impact in the grand picture.  That's just my opinion.
    Sounds exactly like the arguments against seatbelt laws, smoking ages and bans, the EPA, etc...
    "We can't totally fix the problem ever, so we'd better not even try!"
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,596
    edited June 23
    eddiec said:
    PJPOWER said:
    I honestly think that the only way you could completely prevent mass shootings or gun violence is to confiscate every firearm in the country (probably impossible).  That may seem funny to hear from a gun rights supporter.  Am I in support of such a measure...absolutely not.  And neither are any of you, right?  Both sides of the platform say that they are against this.  Everything else up to that seems more like a "feel good" measure that wouldn't make much of an impact in the grand picture.  That's just my opinion.

    It should not be more difficult to obtain a fishing license than it is to buy a gun.

    Apples and oranges... fishing poles maybe?  I do not think it's easier to get a gun than a fishing pole... Hunting licenses and fishing licenses are pretty much equal in difficulty to obtain though.  Permits/licenses to carry firearms are more difficult.
    Post edited by PJPOWER on
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • PJPOWERPJPOWER In Yo FacePosts: 2,596
    rgambs said:
    PJPOWER said:
    I honestly think that the only way you could completely prevent mass shootings or gun violence is to confiscate every firearm in the country (probably impossible).  That may seem funny to hear from a gun rights supporter.  Am I in support of such a measure...absolutely not.  And neither are any of you, right?  Both sides of the platform say that they are against this.  Everything else up to that seems more like a "feel good" measure that wouldn't make much of an impact in the grand picture.  That's just my opinion.
    Sounds exactly like the arguments against seatbelt laws, smoking ages and bans, the EPA, etc...
    "We can't totally fix the problem ever, so we'd better not even try!"
    I didn't say "don't try".  I just suggest thinking outside of the box of banning things.  Reallocate the money spent on useless "feel gooders" and fix the gang problems, bullying issues, mental health treatment, etc.
    "At least I'm housebroken"
  • ponytdponytd NashvillePosts: 494
    PJPOWER said:
    ponytd said:
    ponytd said:
    ponytd said:
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    Nobody has unrestricted access to those weapons. If you want a fully automatic gun, you have to apply for a specialty license that costs several thousand dollars. An AR/AK that is available for sale will only shoot as fast as you can pull the trigger. So, I guess if you can physically pull the trigger hundreds of times in a minute, it will fire that many rounds, but I know of no one who can do that.


    Someone hip shooting an AR can do 6 to 10 rounds a second pretty easily. 
    a second?  an AR only fires 1 round every time the trigger is pulled.  A human can't pull a trigger that many times in 1 second. If they can, they're going to be wildly inaccurate. A semi-auto rifle is good for about 45-60 rounds per minute, since it takes about 1 second to pull the trigger.
    ok, maybe not 1 second to pull the trigger. you can probably get 2 rounds off in a second. But as tbergs said, it really doesn't matter that much. It's still deadly and even though I'm all for people being able to own as many guns as they want, and they are fun to shoot, there's really not a need for an AR/AK or other semi-auto rifle. I know people say they are great home defense weapons, and that's true, but a shotgun or handgun is just as good. They all accomplish the same thing.
    There are so many arguments among experienced shooters what the best home defense weapon would be and it all boils down to the one that the individual can most reliably handle and use. They make ammo for rifles that penetrate less walls than even shotguns.  A person can get 2 rounds off in a second from any semi-auto firearm.  Are you suggesting all semi-auto firearms should be banned?  That goes well beyond the AK/AR-15 platforms.  Many duck hunting shotguns and deer rifles are semi-auto....
    Oh, no, I'm not for banning semi-auto. I was merely saying "is there a need for the AR/AK/M4 platform type of weapon?". And yes, like you said, there are those bullets that basically stop going through so many walls. I personally am for those types of firearms. But I could see how those on the other side, can make arguments against those. Like you said, there are many arguments for both sides.
  • BentleyspopBentleyspop Craft Beer Brewery, ColoradoPosts: 3,811
    pjhawks said:
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    come on the boogey man might be coming with 72 friends to take someones house so they need those hundreds of rounds per minute for the 1 in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance something like that might actually occur.  :fearful:   it really is sad.
    For a lot of people in this country, and a few on this site,  the boogey man is President Obama and his 72 friends are U.N. troops. And they fully believe this can and will happen.
  • rgambs said:
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    If Sandy Hook couldn't serve as the catalyst... nothing can. 

    A truly shocking mentality from the outside looking in. 
    Between that and Trump, we must look like a bunch of brain-dead savages.

    I noticed you were away for a time, did you have a vacation or just a nice break from the boards?
    It's not your country's finest hours for sure.

    I've been around, but have limited my participation in some threads. I came to the realization that nobody listens to anyone for some issues (myself included).

    The 'pro-gunners' are correct when they state that meaningful legislation will never occur in the US. The will to fix the problem simply isn't there outside of those grounded in common sense. Prior to that pencil necked geek, Lanza, mowing down all those kids with his assault rifle... his mother was just like people around here saying the same stuff: 'don't punish good owners'... 'the assault rifle is no different than any other gun'... 'the second amendment'... 'blah blah blah'.

    Every gun is designed to kill things- they weren't developed to aerate lawns. The assault rifle is designed to kill many things (people in particular) at close range. We shouldn't be shocked when they perform their designed task well.

    What's my point? My point is the problem is always elsewhere until someone or someone's gun materializes as the problem.

    * What I find funny is that some of the people asking others to not hold the countless 'good' gun owners responsible for the crimes of some individuals condemn every Muslim for the crimes committed by extremists.
    "My brain's a good brain!"
  • HesCalledDyerHesCalledDyer MarylandPosts: 9,020
    rgambs said:
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    If Sandy Hook couldn't serve as the catalyst... nothing can. 

    A truly shocking mentality from the outside looking in. 
    Between that and Trump, we must look like a bunch of brain-dead savages.

    I noticed you were away for a time, did you have a vacation or just a nice break from the boards?
    It's not your country's finest hours for sure.

    I've been around, but have limited my participation in some threads. I came to the realization that nobody listens to anyone for some issues (myself included).

    The 'pro-gunners' are correct when they state that meaningful legislation will never occur in the US. The will to fix the problem simply isn't there outside of those grounded in common sense. Prior to that pencil necked geek, Lanza, mowing down all those kids with his assault rifle... his mother was just like people around here saying the same stuff: 'don't punish good owners'... 'the assault rifle is no different than any other gun'... 'the second amendment'... 'blah blah blah'.

    Every gun is designed to kill things- they weren't developed to aerate lawns. The assault rifle is designed to kill many things (people in particular) at close range. We shouldn't be shocked when they perform their designed task well.

    What's my point? My point is the problem is always elsewhere until someone or someone's gun materializes as the problem.

    * What I find funny is that some of the people asking others to not hold the countless 'good' gun owners responsible for the crimes of some individuals condemn every Muslim for the crimes committed by extremists.
    That's some truth, right there!
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,736
    CM189191 said:

    ‘Pizzagate’ Gunman In DC Sentenced To 4 Years In Prison

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/pizzagate-gunman-sentence-4-years-prison
    Good. Moron. 
    they should try the person who started that entire fantasy story.
    Podesta?
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,736
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    If Sandy Hook couldn't serve as the catalyst... nothing can. 

    A truly shocking mentality from the outside looking in. 
    And what is Sandy Hook supposed to do?
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,000
    unsung said:
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    If Sandy Hook couldn't serve as the catalyst... nothing can. 

    A truly shocking mentality from the outside looking in. 
    And what is Sandy Hook supposed to do?
    If you don't understand what that means, no amount of explaining will help. 
     
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,848
    unsung said:
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    If Sandy Hook couldn't serve as the catalyst... nothing can. 

    A truly shocking mentality from the outside looking in. 
    And what is Sandy Hook supposed to do?
    Remind us that the whole sale slaughter of innocent school children is but a small price to pay for you to have your shiny boom boom toys. 
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,736
    CM189191 said:
    unsung said:
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    If Sandy Hook couldn't serve as the catalyst... nothing can. 

    A truly shocking mentality from the outside looking in. 
    And what is Sandy Hook supposed to do?
    Remind us that the whole sale slaughter of innocent school children is but a small price to pay for you to have your shiny boom boom toys. 
    So what action should have been taken?
  • CM189191CM189191 Minneapolis via ChicagoPosts: 2,848
    unsung said:
    CM189191 said:
    unsung said:
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    If Sandy Hook couldn't serve as the catalyst... nothing can. 

    A truly shocking mentality from the outside looking in. 
    And what is Sandy Hook supposed to do?
    Remind us that the whole sale slaughter of innocent school children is but a small price to pay for you to have your shiny boom boom toys. 
    So what action should have been taken?
    Realistic gun laws. Specifically confiscating all your guns to start. 
    WI 6/27/98 WI 10/8/00 MO 10/11/00 IL 4/23/03 MN 6/26/06 MN 6/27/06 WI 6/30/06 IL 8/5/07 IL 8/21/08 (EV) IL 8/22/08 (EV) IL 8/23/09 IL 8/24/09 IN 5/7/10 IL 6/28/11 (EV) IL 6/29/11 (EV) WI 9/3/11 WI 9/4/11 IL 7/19/13 NE 10/09/14 IL 10/17/14 MN 10/19/14 FL 4/11/16 IL 8/20/16 IL 8/22/16
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,736
    Lol.  Clown.
  • mcgruff10mcgruff10 New JerseyPosts: 11,944
    registration of every gun sold is a nice place to start. 
    I'll ride the wave where it takes me......
  • oftenreadingoftenreading Victoria, BCPosts: 6,000
    mcgruff10 said:
    registration of every gun sold is a nice place to start. 
    I agree with that. Federally, and tracked at every changing of hands. 
    my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
  • RiotZactRiotZact Posts: 4,606
    CM189191 said:
    unsung said:
    CM189191 said:
    unsung said:
    rgambs said:
    If we can't come together and agree that there is no legitimate reason for citizens to have unrestricted access to weapons that fire hundreds of rounds per minute, we have no hope of solving any firearm related problems.
    If Sandy Hook couldn't serve as the catalyst... nothing can. 

    A truly shocking mentality from the outside looking in. 
    And what is Sandy Hook supposed to do?
    Remind us that the whole sale slaughter of innocent school children is but a small price to pay for you to have your shiny boom boom toys. 
    So what action should have been taken?
    Realistic gun laws. Specifically confiscating all your guns to start. 
    Not sure if you meant this as a joke but this is the sort of mentality that gives common sense gun law advocates a bad name. As long as there's one or two outliers to point to and say "see they do want to take all of our guns!" then it's hard to make any significant progress. 
  • unsungunsung Posts: 7,736
    Well, at least people on this board can no longer say that nobody here has wanted that.

    The odd thing is people that want this are not really against guns.
Sign In or Register to comment.