Another mass shooting in the U.S

smurgen · 19-12-2012 08:37PM

Sparks wrote: »

Those are already very strictly controlled in the US, and very rare.
And weren't used in this shooting. I can't actually think of a mass shooting anywhere in the world that used one, off the top of my head.

so you're telling me the bushmaster gun used in this case didn't fire several bullets a second?why is there a need for a civilian to have a gun with such a rate of fire?

hedzball · 19-12-2012 08:38PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Yes, "Assault Weapon" is used to describe any rifle that looks military, even lower power "kids" rifles.

You certainly wouldn't want to be "assaulting" anything with the majority of them.

Take a look at this thing. The news media would call it an "Assault Weapon" but its just show and is mostly for targets. It would be inhumane to hunt anyting larger than a rat with it as it lacks power. See the big magazine? Thats mostly fake, the bullets that go in it are tiny.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=321713770

a 22lr??

Must have some tiny bunnys down your parts or huge rats :pac::pac:

'hdz

yoyo · 19-12-2012 08:41PM

If the AR15 is considered a "hunting" rifle, then why are 30 round upwards magazines being sold and used, surely for hunting purposes anything more than 10 is (pardon the pun) overkill. You could see how an extra 20 rounds or more in Iraq or any war zone is good to have in case of an ambush or whatever else, but for hunting deers or whatever?

Nick

hedzball · 19-12-2012 08:42PM

smurgen wrote: »

so you're telling me the bushmaster gun used in this case didn't fire several bullets a second?why is there a need for a civilian to have a gun with such a rate of fire?

The bushmaster fires 1 bullet per trigger pulled.. it really isn't rocket science..

If you can pull and retract your index finger 10 times a second.. it will shoot ten rounds a second.. be lucky after force in the pull/recoil if you manage 2-4 shots.

Semi auto rifles are used in hunting/sport.. Boar shooting would be an adequate reason for it.. a 300lb hog coming at you.. managing a bolt action is not an option

bajer100 · 19-12-2012 08:45PM

hedzball wrote: »

The bushmaster fires 1 bullet per trigger pulled.. it really isn't rocket science..

If you can pull and retract your index finger 10 times a second.. it will shoot ten rounds a second.. be lucky after force in the pull/recoil if you manage 2-4 shots.

Semi auto rifles are used in hunting/sport.. Boar shooting would be an adequate reason for it.. a 300lb hog coming at you.. managing a bolt action is not an option

Leaving the boar alone and not shooting it in the first place is an option. If the argument boils down to banning weapons that will result in saving people's lives versus allowing people to hunt animals for sport - it really is a no-brainer.

InTheTrees · 19-12-2012 08:45PM

smurgen wrote: »

so you're telling me the bushmaster gun used in this case didn't fire several bullets a second?

Yes. It wasnt full auto. It was semi-auto.

Full auto is highly illegal.

Witcher · 19-12-2012 08:45PM

bajer100 wrote: »

Good argument for banning semi-autos. If proper training and practice means that a proficient, dedicated enthusiast can get non-automatic weapons to perform to the same standard as semi and fully automatic weapons - then ban all semi and fully automatic weapons. The psychos who tend to carry out these massacres probably wouldn't have the dedication to get these weapons to perform at this level.

The kid's 13 and one of the top 3 cowboy action shooters in America....one can't pick up the ability he has by practice. The average person who uses an AR15 shooting IPSC or 3 gun shooting couldn't cycle a lever action as fast as he does...that's why they use s/a rifles. It's ridiculous to say 'well this guy can shoot that fast with a lever action so everyone else can learn and give up their semi autos'.

Go to 11:05 in this video..should everyone give up their Glocks etc. that they use for shooting IPSC etc. because Bob Munden can draw and fire 2 shots from a single action revolver faster than the average person can even draw one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thCl_mYIUBE

InTheTrees · 19-12-2012 08:49PM

hedzball wrote: »

a 22lr??

Must have some tiny bunnys down your parts or huge rats :pac::pac:

'hdz

Well yeah, I guess I was being a little strict... rabbits are fair game too.

Witcher · 19-12-2012 08:49PM

yoyo wrote: »

If the AR15 is considered a "hunting" rifle, then why are 30 round upwards magazines being sold and used, surely for hunting purposes anything more than 10 is (pardon the pun) overkill. You could see how an extra 20 rounds or more in Iraq or any war zone is good to have in case of an ambush or whatever else, but for hunting deers or whatever?

Nick

As I stated to someone else in this thread, just because there is a 30 round mag in the rifle doesn't mean it's loaded to capacity. People tend not to use 5 round mags as they are hard to remove from the gun because they sit almost flush to the bottom of the magazine well. Most hunting with them will use the 30 round mag as it's easier to grip and remove and just load 5/10 rounds into it.

wonderfullife · 19-12-2012 08:49PM

Sparks wrote: »

No, because (a) they're not the main weapon used in homicides in the US and (b) I don't think that will be addressing the root cause; and like the unfortunate events in Canada when they brought in firearms restrictions for pistols showed, changing the means someone uses doesn't mean you'll stop them reaching their end.

And remember, Connecticut's had an assault weapons ban since 1994 at state level and it did not prevent Sandy Hook. Neither did the mandatory background checks, neither did the laws that prohibited the shooter owning handguns or being given access to them.

You do a great job of being intentionally neglectful with the truth.

Connecticuts assault weapons ban since 1994 excluded nearly 600 types of assault weapons from the law. Included in this was the Bushmaster .223 rifle used in Sandy Hook. It was legally available to be bought and owned in the State - and Lanzas mother did just that, bought and legally owned it.

The "ban" was a half-baked ban in which so many concessions had to be made to the NRA and lobbies to even get the ban through. I don't need to research the Bushmaster .223 at all because i already know it's capable of putting 150 bullets into 20 children in a matter of minutes. Only 2 of the children even had a fighting chance and even those 2 died before reaching the hospital.

It's fine to be economical with the truth to suit you argument but get the facts straight - there was not a proper ban on semi-automatic weapons.

bajer100 · 19-12-2012 08:50PM

Blay wrote: »

The kid's 13 and one of the top 3 cowboy action shooters in America....one can't pick up the ability he has by practice. The average person who uses an AR15 shooting IPSC or 3 gun shooting couldn't cycle a lever action as fast as he does...that's why they use s/a rifles. It's ridiculous to say 'well this guy can shoot that fast with a lever action so everyone else can learn and give up their semi autos'.

Go to 11:05 in this video..should everyone give up their pistols that they use for shooting IPSC etc. because Bob Muden can draw and fire a gun before one can even perceive the movement of his hand?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=thCl_mYIUBE

Exactly! Then introducing this sort of "evidence" into the debate is ridiculous.

hedzball · 19-12-2012 08:54PM

bajer100 wrote: »

Leaving the boar alone and not shooting it in the first place is an option.

Considering the Coyotes and the boars are killing everything and wiping out other species let alone breeding out of control it isn't.. Vermin control has to be down.. It isn't about the kill its about the preservation..

bajer100 wrote: »

If the argument boils down to banning weapons that will result in saving people's lives versus allowing people to hunt animals for sport - it really is a no-brainer.

Roughly 4600 (i stand to be corrected) died on motorcycles in the states too.. should they be banned as well?. Why is every uninformed decision to ban everything an option?.

You obviously don't know much about hunting or shooting sports (i am not holding it against you) ... But that is highly influencing your "Ban em sure" attitude.. along with everyone elses..

If I hit you with a hammer it would hurt.. The hammer wasn't to blame..

'hdz

Witcher · 19-12-2012 08:55PM

bajer100 wrote: »

Exactly! Then introducing this sort of "evidence" into the debate is ridiculous.

I think you picked me up wrong, I'm stating that there is a need for s/a rifles for shooting IPSC/3 gun etc. because not everyone can cycle a lever action in the blink of an eye like that kid can.

Sparks · 19-12-2012 08:55PM

bajer100 wrote: »

The psychos who tend to carry out these massacres probably wouldn't have the dedication to get these weapons to perform at this level.

Yes, because as we all know, the mentally ill are a feckless group, incapable of any sort of long-term effort.
Except for Ted Kaczynski. And the 9/11 hijackers. And Timothy McVeigh. And the 7/7 bombers. And... you know what? Actually, it looks like your point wasn't well founded in fact.

InTheTrees · 19-12-2012 08:55PM

yoyo wrote: »

If the AR15 is considered a "hunting" rifle, then why are 30 round upwards magazines being sold and used, surely for hunting purposes anything more than 10 is (pardon the pun) overkill. You could see how an extra 20 rounds or more in Iraq or any war zone is good to have in case of an ambush or whatever else, but for hunting deers or whatever?

Hunting is a reason that anti-gun folks come up with in an effort to try and explain why pro-gun folks want to have Big Powerful Guns.

But it really has little to do with the discussion, because nobody that buys an AK47 is going to be going hunting with it. Unless they're nuts.

wonderfullife · 19-12-2012 08:59PM

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, because as we all know, the mentally ill are a feckless group, incapable of any sort of long-term effort.
Except for Ted Kaczynski. And the 9/11 hijackers. And Timothy McVeigh. And the 7/7 bombers. And... you know what? Actually, it looks like your point wasn't well founded in fact.

Please stop before you embarrass yourself further.

You are now suggesting the 9/11 hijackers were all mentally ill?

There is zero evidence to suggest ANY of them were mentally ill? Having a misguided political cause to inflict damage is NOT mental illness. Otherwise the I.R.A. and every terrorist group in the world are all just mentally ill and merely need help.

hedzball · 19-12-2012 08:59PM

As my father says when I bring home synthetic stocked rifles/shotguns..

"I can see you are living in the "call of duty" era"

'hdz

Witcher · 19-12-2012 09:00PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Hunting is a reason that anti-gun folks come up with in an effort to try and explain why pro-gun folks want to have Big Powerful Guns.

But it really has little to do with the discussion, because nobody that buys an AK47 is going to be going hunting with it. Unless they're nuts.

People hunt with all sorts of firearms in the US, there's a period in most states where one can hunt with a blackpowder rifle. Plenty use AR15's, AK's, M1 Carbines, M1 Garands, Ruger Mini's 14's to take deer...just because we typically use bolt action rifles here doesn't mean everyone has to or wants to.

yoyo · 19-12-2012 09:00PM

Blay wrote: »

As I stated to someone else in this thread, just because there is a 30 round mag in the rifle doesn't mean it's loaded to capacity. People tend not to use 5 round mags as they are hard to remove from the gun because they sit almost flush to the bottom of the magazine well. Most hunting with them will use the 30 round mag as it's easier to grip and remove and just load 5/10 rounds into it.

That's true, but the gun supports higher capacity magazines which in turn makes it easier for nutters to go on a rampage with the need to reload drastically less. If the shooter has a shotgun, after 6/7 cartridges they must reload or switch weapon, its quicker to slip out a 30 round mag and put another in and continue shooting.
Same as with AK 47s, these weapons were designed for killing humans in war zones or at law enforcement level, hence built to accept slip out magazines of any capacity you want. Regardless of semi or full auto (I appreciate these are not FA so not technically "assault rifles"), I doubt you'd get far over here getting a license for a SA AR 15 rifle, but I'm sure a SA hunting rifle with internal mag wouldn't be an issue once you have a license.

Nick

bajer100 · 19-12-2012 09:02PM

hedzball wrote: »

Considering the Coyotes and the boars are killing everything and wiping out other species let alone breeding out of control it isn't.. Vermin control has to be down.. It isn't about the kill its about the preservation..

Roughly 4600 (i stand to be corrected) died on motorcycles in the states too.. should they be banned as well?. Why is every uninformed decision to ban everything an option?.

You obviously don't know much about hunting or shooting sports (i am not holding it against you) ... But that is highly influencing your "Ban em sure" attitude.. along with everyone elses..

If I hit you with a hammer it would hurt.. The hammer wasn't to blame..

'hdz

There are lots of jurisdictions where vermin and predators are a problem. Their control and eradication is usually undertaken by trained professionals - not by the be the general public. If these professionals require special weaponry to deal with the pests - fine.

The motorcycle argument is a straw man argument and is irrelevant. Please stay on topic.

I know enough about hunting and shooting sports - they are both legal in Ireland and are both strictly controlled. If 20 kids were massacred in Ireland by a legally procured weapon - I can guarantee you that access to such weapons would become even more stringent.

Hammer argument? Another irrelevant straw man.

Sparks · 19-12-2012 09:03PM

smurgen wrote: »

so you're telling me the bushmaster gun used in this case didn't fire several bullets a second?

You might - if you didn't mind most of them going into the ceiling - get two rounds a second out of it with some practice.
Maybe. MM or some of our American posters or any of the Irish posters that own these rifles might know different, and I'd bow to their experience, but I don't personally think you could do it.

The kind of thing you're thinking of is an actual assault rifle, like - say - an M16 which can get a rate of fire up in the several-hundred-rounds-per-minute range. There are some details there about burst fire mode and the exact number of rounds per minute and so on, but just squint for the moment - the important and salient point is that (a) assault rifles are strictly controlled in the US at the federal level; and (b) there's an assault weapons ban in Connecticut at the state level (came in in '94, still on the books today, and from my quick read it looks more extensive than the federal ban that ended in '04).

InTheTrees · 19-12-2012 09:06PM

Blay wrote: »

People hunt with all sorts of firearms in the US, there's a period in most states where one can hunt with a blackpowder rifle. Plenty use AR15's, AK's, M1 Carbines, M1 Garands, Ruger Mini's 14's to take deer...just because we typically use bolt action rifles here doesn't mean everyone has to or wants to.

Well yes, but my point to counter the constant refrain of "well if its not specifically for "hunting" then what possible reason is there for possessing it?".

Witcher · 19-12-2012 09:08PM

yoyo wrote: »

I doubt you'd get far over here getting a license for a SA AR 15 rifle, but I'm sure a SA hunting rifle with internal mag wouldn't be an issue once you have a license.

You would be wrong, there are people on the shooting forum here that have S/A AR15 pattern rifles and there's no restriction here on the magazine capacity here..you could hang a 100 round drum mag out of it if you wanted to. Others have M1 Garands, Springfield M1A's, civilian versions of the G3 etc and several in my own club would have M1 Carbines. All of those bar the M1 Garand will take a 20/30 round mag. Most people don't seem to be aware of what is available here if you have a reason for it.

wonderfullife · 19-12-2012 09:08PM

Sparks wrote: »

You might - if you didn't mind most of them going into the ceiling - get two rounds a second out of it with some practice.
Maybe. MM or some of our American posters or any of the Irish posters that own these rifles might know different, and I'd bow to their experience, but I don't personally think you could do it.

The kind of thing you're thinking of is an actual assault rifle, like - say - an M16 which can get a rate of fire up in the several-hundred-rounds-per-minute range. There are some details there about burst fire mode and the exact number of rounds per minute and so on, but just squint for the moment - the important and salient point is that (a) assault rifles are strictly controlled in the US at the federal level; and (b) there's an assault weapons ban in Connecticut at the state level (came in in '94, still on the books today, and from my quick read it looks more extensive than the federal ban that ended in '04).

You don't quit do you! or are rather good at ignoring people. Either way what you are writing is incorrect. The Busmmaster .223 and over 600 models were exempt from CT semi-auto ban. Lanzas mother legally owned the .223 and all the ammo too.

Also if reports are true that Adam Lanza was always down the shooting range and got any way good at it, it's not fanciful to say he could have got 60-100 rounds off in a minute. Given his targets were mostly small children, you think it's fine to have a weapon capable of unloading 150 bullets in minutes into children? Oh yeah wait, you do, as most people use them responsibly for target shooting. Frankly disgusting attitudes but each to their own.

smurgen · 19-12-2012 09:09PM

Overheal wrote: »

I think its funny how people try and blame any one thing.

no i think most people understand it's complex situation and that a multitude of factors came together which ended in the deaths of all these people. I also have been asking questions not to annoy you pro gun guys but to actually figure out more information. You have educated me and I appreciate that.
However, I find you guys are almost sneering at people who are looking for solutions to stop events like. so far you guys haven't been able to throw up any possible steps that could be taken to prevent more massacres like this. The feeling i'm getting from ye is that the mass murder of civilians is just the cost of the right to bear arms and those of us complaining need to just put up and shut up.

Sparks · 19-12-2012 09:10PM

wonderfullife wrote: »

You do a great job of being intentionally neglectful with the truth.

Not so much.

Connecticuts assault weapons ban since 1994 excluded nearly 600 types of assault weapons from the law.

Nope, not true.

Included in this was the Bushmaster .223 rifle used in Sandy Hook. It was legally available to be bought and owned in the State - and Lanzas mother did just that, bought and legally owned it.

See, here's the thing. It's an assault weapons ban, and that rifle, is not an assault rifle. The ban set out things you could not have; this rifle was made in compliance with that law.

Now you want to say that they were in some way nefarious or underhanded because they followed the law?
What, so when I cross the street on a pedestrian crossing, I'm being nefarious?

I don't need to research

Wrong.
Just... wrong.
You need to research so badly it'd be funny if the topic didn't have such a tragic origin.

I mean look -- you can't even keep your line straight for the length of one post:

It's fine to be economical with the truth to suit you argument but get the facts straight - there was not a proper ban on semi-automatic weapons.

You've bounced from talking about an assault weapons ban to a "proper ban on semiautomatic weapons" in the space of one post while talking about the same physical thing. Do you not understand that words in the English language have defined meanings that don't change those meanings for your convenience? Or that you can't call people liars just because you don't use a dictionary?

hedzball · 19-12-2012 09:11PM

yoyo wrote: »

I doubt you'd get far over here getting a license for a SA AR 15 rifle, but I'm sure a SA hunting rifle with internal mag wouldn't be an issue once you have a license.

Nick

You can get Ar15's over here for hunting..

Alot of legal loop holes and sometimes court but they are regularly licensed.

Few of my friends have them.. Mighty yoke for close range foxing.

'hdz

The Aussie · 19-12-2012 09:11PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

Because nobody that buys an AK47 is going to be going hunting with it. Unless they're nuts.

As a bloke that does the odd bit of hunting about the place, my thoughts on it are, if you need an assault rifle to go hunting, in fairness you must be fairly crap at.

So your second option seems the most likely.

bajer100 · 19-12-2012 09:15PM

Blay wrote: »

I think you picked me up wrong, I'm stating that there is a need for s/a rifles for shooting IPSC/3 gun etc. because not everyone can cycle a lever action in the blink of an eye like that kid can.

Sparks wrote: »

Yes, because as we all know, the mentally ill are a feckless group, incapable of any sort of long-term effort.
Except for Ted Kaczynski. And the 9/11 hijackers. And Timothy McVeigh. And the 7/7 bombers. And... you know what? Actually, it looks like your point wasn't well founded in fact.

I think you both missed my point. The original poster of those videos was trying to argue that because non automatic weapons can be fired as quickly as automatic weapons - then that is an argument to not bother banning semi-autos. I responded sarcastically and then Blay made my point for me - that it is ridiculous to use such anomalies as a reason not to ban certain weapons.

@Sparks - as an aside to the point you make, making it harder for people to get access to the weapons will invariably decrease the likelihood that they will carry out the acts. If the last 20 perpetrators of mass murder with guns were not able to get their hands on guns, do you think that they all would have gone on to makes bombs? No they wouldn't - and less people would have died. Simple as that.

Rovi · 19-12-2012 09:17PM

Sparks wrote: »

You might - if you didn't mind most of them going into the ceiling - get two rounds a second out of it with some practice.
Maybe. MM or some of our American posters or any of the Irish posters that own these rifles might know different, and I'd bow to their experience, but I don't personally think you could do it.

The top end of 'dynamic' shooting competitors are firing these rifles 1 to 2 times per second, for 2 shots at a time before pausing to switch to the next target, and they're looking to go as fast as possible while retaining accuracy.
If someone's just looking to make noise and mash on the trigger as quickly as possible, they'll get 3 or 4 or maybe even 5 shots a second off, but they'll only vaguely be going in the direction of the target.

Another mass shooting in the U.S

Comments