America's Gun Violence

Meltdown99

Maybe instead of a southern wall, and maybe northern wall...build a wall around schools...

The Juggler

Meltdown99 said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

my2hands said:

PJPOWER said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

Bentleyspop said:

The people who want more security in schools as well as train and arm teachers and school staff are the same people who want to reduce government spending and believe that teachers are overpaid.

I think very few people support arming teachers. That is not a common viewpoint for GOP or gun owners.

I don't think that's true.  It's everywhere.

I hear more security, maybe increase the number of campus police. But I only hear a few say give teachers guns.
I hear that teachers should have the right to protect themselves by carrying a gun if they chose more often, but I just haven't hear any politician or anyone outside of a few maybe on facebook or here suggest that giving teachers guns is going to solve it.
I just never saw that as an option anyone has taken seriously.

I don’t think anyone is advocating “giving” them to the teachers or forcing/requiring them to be armed...I would not be supportive of this.  Allowing them to voluntarily arm themselves- yes (with mandatory strict training and certification).

And when they inevitably become the active shooter?

What makes you think they would?  What about when they inevitably stop an active shooter?  Should we also disarm all law enforcement since they may become an active shooter?  That’s a weak argument.

But they're not law enforcement. They're fucking teachers. If this country, compared to the rest of the world proves anything, it's that more guns have lead to more gun violence.

To me--its not that the teacher might become an active shooter (but you never know)....its that the likelihood of an accident with small children becomes a much greater risk. This is a dumb idea. Hire an armed security guard if you want. A kindergarten teacher teaching the alphabet with a loaded gun strapped to her person just sounds like the most asinine idea anyone has ever come up with.

That’s be something to see. Teachers carrying a holstered gun, like it’s the Wild West.   No disrespect to any teacher, but teachers can get very stressed...there has to be a better way.

My wife's a teacher. The thought of her packing heat scares the bejesus out of me.

The Juggler

mattsl1983 said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

rgambs said:

pjhawks said:

PJPOWER said:

pjhawks said:

personally I think you have to be a complete idiot to think the solution to mass shootings is more guns.  it really is an absurd premise.  

Do you feel the same way about armed security at sporting events and concerts?  Do you feel safer or less safe at a concert knowing there is armed security?

Most sporting events and arenas now have metal detectors and you get wanded going in.  You can never be 100% safe but I don't think you need 1000s of armed guards at sporting events and concerts.  and to be honest i've never gone into a game or concert and said to myself 'wow i'ms sure glad there are guards here, now i feel safe'. not once.   What's next guard towers on the top of schools?  on every block in every city?  get weapons made for war out the hands of citizens. it's really not complicated.

That slippery slope argument isn't any better than the pro-gun ones regarding gun confiscations.

how can adding more of the main thing causing the problem be the solution?  you don't throw gasoline on a fire. is this really hard to comprehend?

I didn't suggest that it was.
I generally agree, but things are getting pretty severe and my position is loosening.

Have you never heard of a controlled burn?
Have you ever been in a fist fight? 
Sometimes there's only one way out of a violent situation.

I don't think "more guns" is a solution, but Im beginning to think "more controlled access to guns in combination with the right people having emergency access to guns" is a solution.

But is giving someone a handgun going to prevent or stop an attack of someone with an assault rifle?  no, if they have an assault rifle and the desire there will be casualties. i don't know the exact numbers but how many rounds can be fired from an assault rifle before a handgun is pulled and fired?  Unless you are preventatively shooting people you aren't preventing or stopping an attack with no casualties with a handgun. there is one solution. stop people from having mass casualty weapons. period.

Sounds like a great idea for 10-20 years down the road...

I'll repeat this for about the FOURTH time. There was an assault weapons ban that WORKED from 1994-2004.

Again, referencing the 1994-2004, where were all the mass shootings before 1994?

Fella, are you just ignoring my initial response which outlined 3 or 4 mass shootings in the years leading up to 1994? Why do you think the ban was instituted in the first place?

Meltdown99

The Juggler said:

Meltdown99 said:

The Juggler said:

PJPOWER said:

my2hands said:

PJPOWER said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

Bentleyspop said:

The people who want more security in schools as well as train and arm teachers and school staff are the same people who want to reduce government spending and believe that teachers are overpaid.

I think very few people support arming teachers. That is not a common viewpoint for GOP or gun owners.

I don't think that's true.  It's everywhere.

I hear more security, maybe increase the number of campus police. But I only hear a few say give teachers guns.
I hear that teachers should have the right to protect themselves by carrying a gun if they chose more often, but I just haven't hear any politician or anyone outside of a few maybe on facebook or here suggest that giving teachers guns is going to solve it.
I just never saw that as an option anyone has taken seriously.

I don’t think anyone is advocating “giving” them to the teachers or forcing/requiring them to be armed...I would not be supportive of this.  Allowing them to voluntarily arm themselves- yes (with mandatory strict training and certification).

And when they inevitably become the active shooter?

What makes you think they would?  What about when they inevitably stop an active shooter?  Should we also disarm all law enforcement since they may become an active shooter?  That’s a weak argument.

But they're not law enforcement. They're fucking teachers. If this country, compared to the rest of the world proves anything, it's that more guns have lead to more gun violence.

To me--its not that the teacher might become an active shooter (but you never know)....its that the likelihood of an accident with small children becomes a much greater risk. This is a dumb idea. Hire an armed security guard if you want. A kindergarten teacher teaching the alphabet with a loaded gun strapped to her person just sounds like the most asinine idea anyone has ever come up with.

That’s be something to see. Teachers carrying a holstered gun, like it’s the Wild West.   No disrespect to any teacher, but teachers can get very stressed...there has to be a better way.

My wife's a teacher. The thought of her packing heat scares the bejesus out of me.

I don’t blame you, how does she feel about teachers possibly carrying...

riley540

The Juggler said:

riley540 said:

Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book. 

Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven. 

A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?

Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?

And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.

It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage. 

Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out. 

OnWis97

my2hands said:

PJPOWER said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

Bentleyspop said:

The people who want more security in schools as well as train and arm teachers and school staff are the same people who want to reduce government spending and believe that teachers are overpaid.

I think very few people support arming teachers. That is not a common viewpoint for GOP or gun owners.

I don't think that's true.  It's everywhere.

I hear more security, maybe increase the number of campus police. But I only hear a few say give teachers guns.
I hear that teachers should have the right to protect themselves by carrying a gun if they chose more often, but I just haven't hear any politician or anyone outside of a few maybe on facebook or here suggest that giving teachers guns is going to solve it.
I just never saw that as an option anyone has taken seriously.

I don’t think anyone is advocating “giving” them to the teachers or forcing/requiring them to be armed...I would not be supportive of this.  Allowing them to voluntarily arm themselves- yes (with mandatory strict training and certification).

And when they inevitably become the active shooter?

More inevitably, what if they fire a gun at the bad guy to save the day and tag a 5th-grader instead? Have we idealized the notion of a "good guy with a gun" calmly pulling out his piece and taking the bad guy down?  I mean, no way he'll hit a bystander, right?  There's nothing you can trust more than good ol' regular Joes pulling out their guns at school.  

If mandatory, teachers would have to go through rigorous training.  And some would fail.  We'd lose good teachers to not being good with and/or willing to use firearms.  No worries, though.  We would just dismiss them as wussies.

It looks like the NRA is unbeatable and we're on the road to arming society.  Of course what will happen is 30 people will be firing guns in the mall, not know who are the "good guys" and who are the "bad guys" (though most of the people with bodily fluids running down their legs will probably be good guys).  Cops won't know who to fire at.  Good guys will be shooting everything but bad guys; hopefully not too many bystandars.  I mean, really, good guys with hero fantasies taking out bad guys in public places...what could go wrong?

riley540

Also, Australia still has a lot of guns, yet no mass shootings. Also mass shooting have been on an upward trend in the US the past 20 years even though we have had fun access for over 200 years. There’s more to it than availability to weapons. Laws didn’t stop this from happening. It’s against the law to murder, and against the law to carry on school grounds. My point is, laws didn’t prevent this guy. A motivated killer will kill. 

mattsl1983

Halifax2TheMax said:

mattsl1983 said:

rgambs said:

mattsl1983 said:

riotgrl said:

riley540 said:

There isn’t any affective solution I have heard yet. I personally don’t have a good idea to end school shootings, but I haven’t heard any ideas that would actually change anything 

Really?  I've seen both long term and short term solutions mentioned by numerous people here that don't include complete bans.  Just to clarify, in the short term, background checks, required safety courses, required courses on storing guns are things that won't work?  And in the long term, stocking our schools full of people that can help identify, intervene, and help those with anger issues so they don't execute kids while they are at school, won't work?  I guess my questions is, why won't those things work, in your opinion? 

We have background checks in place.  Most of the mass shootings the shooters passed and cleared a background check.  We can’t look into the future and say so and so is going to snap in a year.  Safety courses and required courses would be easy for anyone to take and pass.  The main issue is now it’s the individual’s responsibility to follow the laws and what they learned through their mandatory courses. Sure it could possibly help, but I really don’t see that as a viable solution.  The truth is we can’t control what someone is going to do one day to the next.  I really don’t have a solution, it’s a very complicated issue.  Something needs to be done, but it needs to be something effective.  Not a knee jerk reaction so a couple of people in congress can high five themselves and then use it as a platform for being re-elected.  

The thing missing from this is the justification for people needing firearms with such high capacity for casualties and the justification for not allowing background checks to include actionable, pertinent medical information.
Nobody needs a rifle that fires 130 rounds per minute, and nobody with so many mental health issues should have access to said rifles.

People don’t need any gun.  It is not about a need, it is about a right.  

Are you for stopping all gun violence or are you for limiting which guns can be chosen for the shooter when they decide to do a mass shooting?  The reason I ask is because handguns kill a vastly larger number of people a year than riffles do, including the AR15.  But the AR15 gets all the attention when it is used in a mass shooting.  Banning AR15’s or any semiautomatic assault riffle (even though an assault rifle is basically a military looking rifle that has the same function as a rifle) doesn’t really stop gun violence.  You might curb gun violence by 3 percent.

I agree with you that background checks should be more stringent.  I am not familiar with what all goes into a background check or the loopholes that allow a person to get around them. But I’m am sure that they could be better.  I agree on the mental health issue, the problem there is how do you work around it?  Anyone that has been diagnosed as being depressed goes into a government file?  What happens if someone that was cleared and shows no sign of mental health decides to go on a shooting spree?  

These are questions I ask myself when I hear these solutions. I don’t own a gun so I personally have no vested interest in worrying that someone is going to come take my AR15 away, or any other semiautomatic (which is basically every gun that’s not a bolt action or single shot).  But I do believe in the constitution and the bill of rights.

3% of the victims of Sandy Hook, Las Vegas, Texas and both Florida massacres equates to 5 people. Ask any of the victim’s family and friends if they think that your “3%” would be worth it.
 

I’m really not sure what your point here is in context of what I said.  You come across as a sensationalist.  I don’t have any problem with it, but it makes it hard to have a grown up discussion.  Ask the other 97% of the family victims if it was worth it to them by going after assault riffles would be my response on your level.  

The Juggler

riley540 said:

The Juggler said:

riley540 said:

Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book. 

Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven. 

A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?

Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?

And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.

It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage. 

Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out. 

Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.

Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...

OnWis97

riley540 said:

Also, Australia still has a lot of guns, yet no mass shootings. Also mass shooting have been on an upward trend in the US the past 20 years even though we have had fun access for over 200 years. There’s more to it than availability to weapons. Laws didn’t stop this from happening. It’s against the law to murder, and against the law to carry on school grounds. My point is, laws didn’t prevent this guy. A motivated killer will kill. 

Maybe we should study why we have so many more problems than this.  We can't spend federal money because someone was scared that it would hurt the NRA (what are they afraid of since guns don't kill people.

Seriously, places like Australia don't have this problem.  Maybe it's not the supply of guns that causes the problem here.  But there's not much appetite to figure it out.  Because once someone asks the question, those in power jump right to serving the NRA.

riley540

The Juggler said:

riley540 said:

The Juggler said:

riley540 said:

Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book. 

Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven. 

A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?

Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?

And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.

It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage. 

Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out. 

Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.

Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...

I don’t know. I’m not interested in killing a lot of people. All I’m saying is I don’t think school shootings would end if we ban AR-15s. I shot an AR when I was in high school and it was just kind of boring. Not into shooting. But my friend and his dad love it. He loves the collectibility, the craftsmanship, the hobby, ect. He’s an awesome guy. 

I just know that no matter what happens, there will be a lot of pissed off people. Just trying to offer some alternate perceptive. I don’t have any answers, and obviously no one really does, or this wouldn’t have happened. 

Gern Blansten

riley540 said:

Also, Australia still has a lot of guns, yet no mass shootings. Also mass shooting have been on an upward trend in the US the past 20 years even though we have had fun access for over 200 years. There’s more to it than availability to weapons. Laws didn’t stop this from happening. It’s against the law to murder, and against the law to carry on school grounds. My point is, laws didn’t prevent this guy. A motivated killer will kill. 

Right....and an intelligent society will make it as difficult as possible for those people to kill.

Thirty Bills Unpaid

The Juggler said:

riley540 said:

The Juggler said:

riley540 said:

Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book. 

Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven. 

A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?

Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?

And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.

It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage. 

Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out. 

Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.

Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...

Lighter. Easier to carry.

Yah. You won't get a response to this question. One worth anything anyways.

riley540

Correct me if I am wrong, 

in sandy hook, didn’t the medical examiner date that the rifle wasn’t used and it was a short barrel hand gun that was used to kill? 

I remember the video of him, but I could be wrong. 

riley540

Virginia tech, and columbine hand guns were also used 

mcgruff10

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

The Juggler said:

riley540 said:

The Juggler said:

riley540 said:

Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book. 

Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven. 

A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?

Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?

And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.

It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage. 

Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out. 

Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.

Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...

Lighter. Easier to carry.

Yah. You won't get a response to this question. One worth anything anyways.

Del you are a smart guy, think about why someone wouldn’t use two handguns?  Answer: how the hell are you going to reload in an efficient manner?  With any semi automatic weapon you can walk, drop your mag , load a new mag with your other hand and keep going.

. 

The Juggler

OnWis97 said:

riley540 said:

Also, Australia still has a lot of guns, yet no mass shootings. Also mass shooting have been on an upward trend in the US the past 20 years even though we have had fun access for over 200 years. There’s more to it than availability to weapons. Laws didn’t stop this from happening. It’s against the law to murder, and against the law to carry on school grounds. My point is, laws didn’t prevent this guy. A motivated killer will kill. 

Maybe we should study why we have so many more problems than this.  We can't spend federal money because someone was scared that it would hurt the NRA (what are they afraid of since guns don't kill people.

Seriously, places like Australia don't have this problem.  Maybe it's not the supply of guns that causes the problem here.  But there's not much appetite to figure it out.  Because once someone asks the question, those in power jump right to serving the NRA.

Gun manufacturers have been producing these mass killing machines like never before over the past 14 years since the ban ended. 40 years ago---these kinds of guns were not nearly in as much demand as they are now. I'm sure the NRA drilling the idea that the government is 'coming to take your guns so you better buy as many as possible now' has nothing to do with it though...

josevolution

At the end of the day the NRA will get its way sales will go up they always do after these massacres..

The Juggler

Thirty Bills Unpaid said:

The Juggler said:

riley540 said:

The Juggler said:

riley540 said:

Ban gun sales. Still 300 million guns already out there. Seize the weapons. Risk a war on American soil. Arm the teachers, liberals won’t have it. Take the guns, conservatives won’t have it. Spend efforts figuring out why certain people commit mass murder, and figure out how to stop these people. Reasonable but not talked about. If you think that guy wouldn’t have shot up the school if he couldn’t get an AR 15, you are in denial. I’m sorry, but banning AR15s will not stop mass murders in schools or anywhere else. We need to stop romanticizing these killers. These are human scum looking for a mark in a history book. 

Ive states before, I do not own guns and personally do not really care for them. But I can’t see a van changing anything at all. Personally. I think it’s a good sounding solution that’s emotionally driven and not logically driven. 

A ban actually did change things back in the 90's. More extensive bans have worked in most other civilized societies. Why would it not work here, again....especially with more expensive background checks and more security at schools?

Question for you: Since you say if the guy couldn't get an AR 15 he would still have been able to shoot up the school...my question is how would he have been able to do the same damage if he could not get his hands on an automatic rifle?

And if non automatic rifles would accomplish the same thing....well, why do these shootings all happen with automatic rifles then? Seems to me, and I would think the shooters as well since they're the one using them, that the automatic rifles make killing mass amounts of people way easier than non automatic rifles.

It was not an automatic rifle. It was semi-automatic. No different than a hand gun or a normal rifle. Fully automatic has been banned since the 80s. The only difference is the amount of bullets it holds. Two hand guns would have done the same damage. 

Semi-auto means you pull the trigger, and one bullet comes out. 

Meant to say assault rifles. AR-15 was included in the 94-04 ban.

Question for you: if two hand guns would do the same damage.....why do we never see any mass shootings with the shooter using two hand guns? Why do they always use assault rifles? My guess is it's way easier...

Lighter. Easier to carry.

Yah. You won't get a response to this question. One worth anything anyways.

Never.

Meltdown99

josevolution said:

At the end of the day the NRA will get its way sales will go up they always do after these massacres..

Yup, people can be parinoid.