gun free zones!

[tvc184]

Not just assault rifles ..Guns like Ak-47s, M-16s, Uzis, tech9s, guns that designed to kill a lot in a matter of seconds.

 

I am not trying to be silly but that is a popular misconception repeated time and time again. 

 

Rifles like an AK or AR have a huge advantage over handguns and that is range. Someone that is good with an AR can kill you at a quarter of a mile and that is with open sights. Their fault lies in them being very large as compared to handguns, weigh a good bit more and the ammo/magazines are generally huge and they are more difficult to reload. It is almost impossible to conceal such a weapon. 

 

Almost all of the shootings with these so called "assault" rifles are at extremely close range of a few feet away, not up to hundreds of feet. In early 1991 I was giving a talk to the Lions Club or Optimist or one of the other service organizations. During my short talk I was questioned about "assault" rifles and shooting the San Ysidro McDonald's shooting (21 murdered) was brought up. I told them that the rifle in that situation was not a better weapon and someone in the future was going to wreak more havoc with a handgun. You could carry 100 rounds or more in handgun magazines in a single front pocket of some jeans. It was only a matter of time and a good person can reload in slightly over a second. The media created fear of rifles in mass shootings was for the most part unfounded in my opinion. They are certainly deadly but at a few feet, unnecessary and many times a hindrance to the shooter. 

 

A few weeks later we had the Luby's shooting in Killeen. He shot 43 people and killed 23 in what was at the time the most deadly spree killing in US history while only armed with 9mm pistols. I kind of wanted to go back to the service club and say, "I told you so". 

 

That was later trumped by the VA Tech shootings when 32 people were killed.... again with handguns only and one of them was the tiny .22 round which is more thought of as a tiny and low power practice round and maybe squirrel hunting, an animal which weighs generally less than a pound. 

 

Those were the two most deadly shootings in US history without the need for the dreaded assault rifle as the shooters were not killing people 100-400 yards away. But wait, we move on to Sandy Hook that was the second most people killed  26 people (replacing Luby's) at the school with a rifle but all at almost point blank range. That means a handgun would have been just as deadly if not more so with the usually shorter reloading time. 

 

Until we start having mass murders at 100 yards or more, the idea of rifles being the more serious culprit seem to be misplaced seeing that 2 of the 3 deadliest shootings have been with handguns and the 3rd could have just as well been so. 

 

That fact is that very few people are ever killed with AK or AR style rifles in an average year in the USA. From the federal government CDC stats, of the 11,000 or so firearm homicides a year, the average of the years since the Clinton assault weapon ban expired in 2004 is 48 murders per year from "assault weapons". That means that if you took away these dreaded and scary looking weapons, it would have no bearing on 99.6% of firearms murders. And even that is assuming that the less than 0.4% that did happen with an assault weapon, they shooter simply could not have opted for a less scary weapon to commit the same crime. 

 

Simply repeating the mantra that assault weapons are the problem simply is not true and the statistics including those from the federal government back that up. 

 

But they sure are scary looking.............. 

[tvc184]

So just curious what should we do to stop mass shootings not just in schools.

 

Completely repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all gun or be prepared to respond to it once it happens. Even the confiscation won't stop it as it doesn't take many guns to get through for it to happen. 

 

Just recently a kid with a knife stabbed several people. One of the biggest terror attacks on a school was at Beslan when fire bombs killed more than 160 mostly children. Until we ban gasoline and any other assorted every day items, we cannot stop someone from mass killings. In fact the deadly school killing in the USA was not a shooting but a bombing and not in recent history but way back in 1927 in Bath, Michigan. 

 

You cannot stop a person dedicated at carnage. 

[PAMFAM10]

Completely repeal the Second Amendment and confiscate all gun or be prepared to respond to it once it happens. Even the confiscation won't stop it as it doesn't take many guns to get through for it to happen.

Just recently a kid with a knife stabbed several people. One of the biggest terror attacks on a school was at Beslan when fire bombs killed more than 160 mostly children. Until we ban gasoline and any other assorted every day items, we cannot stop someone from mass killings. In fact the deadly school killing in the USA was not a shooting but a bombing and not in recent history but way back in 1927 in Bath, Michigan.

You cannot stop a person dedicated at carnage.

If you go back to the very beginning of this thread I said the same thing it's no way to stop a person who make a Decision to kill.

[PAMFAM10]

I am not trying to be silly but that is a popular misconception repeated time and time again.

Rifles like an AK or AR have a huge advantage over handguns and that is range. Someone that is good with an AR can kill you at a quarter of a mile and that is with open sights. Their fault lies in them being very large as compared to handguns, weigh a good bit more and the ammo/magazines are generally huge and they are more difficult to reload. It is almost impossible to conceal such a weapon.

Almost all of the shootings with these so called "assault" rifles are at extremely close range of a few feet away, not up to hundreds of feet. In early 1991 I was giving a talk to the Lions Club or Optimist or one of the other service organizations. During my short talk I was questioned about "assault" rifles and shooting the San Ysidro McDonald's shooting (21 murdered) was brought up. I told them that the rifle in that situation was not a better weapon and someone in the future was going to wreak more havoc with a handgun. You could carry 100 rounds or more in handgun magazines in a single front pocket of some jeans. It was only a matter of time and a good person can reload in slightly over a second. The media created fear of rifles in mass shootings was for the most part unfounded in my opinion. They are certainly deadly but at a few feet, unnecessary and many times a hindrance to the shooter.

A few weeks later we had the Luby's shooting in Killeen. He shot 43 people and killed 23 in what was at the time the most deadly spree killing in US history while only armed with 9mm pistols. I kind of wanted to go back to the service club and say, "I told you so".

That was later trumped by the VA Tech shootings when 32 people were killed.... again with handguns only and one of them was the tiny .22 round which is more thought of as a tiny and low power practice round and maybe squirrel hunting, an animal which weighs generally less than a pound.

Those were the two most deadly shootings in US history without the need for the dreaded assault rifle as the shooters were not killing people 100-400 yards away. But wait, we move on to Sandy Hook that was the second most people killed 26 people (replacing Luby's) at the school with a rifle but all at almost point blank range. That means a handgun would have been just as deadly if not more so with the usually shorter reloading time.

Until we start having mass murders at 100 yards or more, the idea of rifles being the more serious culprit seem to be misplaced seeing that 2 of the 3 deadliest shootings have been with handguns and the 3rd could have just as well been so.

That fact is that very few people are ever killed with AK or AR style rifles in an average year in the USA. From the federal government CDC stats, of the 11,000 or so firearm homicides a year, the average of the years since the Clinton assault weapon ban expired in 2004 is 48 murders per year from "assault weapons". That means that if you took away these dreaded and scary looking weapons, it would have no bearing on 99.6% of firearms murders. And even that is assuming that the less than 0.4% that did happen with an assault weapon, they shooter simply could not have opted for a less scary weapon to commit the same crime.

Simply repeating the mantra that assault weapons are the problem simply is not true and the statistics including those from the federal government back that up.

But they sure are scary looking..............

Dude you no how fast a ak47 can fire compared to a normal hand gun how much rounds you can let out before reloading. Your right you can do damage with about anything. But still no reason has been said why not to ban them. Just a bunch of this and that. Im pretty sure the guy who made ak47s m16s etc. Made them for warfare.

[smitty]

If you go back to the very beginning of this thread I said the same thing it's no way to stop a person who make a Decision to kill.

Again -- Since the honest, law abiding citizen will be banned from getting them -- can you guarantee that the dis-honest, the criminal will not??  AND -- if you can't, what's the point of the ban?? 

[PAMFAM10]

Ok smitty you won me over but you wont change my mind about stricken gun laws. If you ever watch the first 48 the suspects always have multiple gun charges. Why is he even on the streets.

[smitty]

Ok smitty you won me over but you wont change my mind about stricken gun laws. If you ever watch the first 48 the suspects always have multiple gun charges. Why is he even on the streets.

Now -- this is something we can agree on!  But, it's not a gun problem.  It's a criminal problem which points to a law enforcement problem.  The will to enforce existing laws to the fullest extent has to be top priority if we are going to protect our citizens. 

[77]

Parenting problem!

[tvc184]

Dude you no how fast a ak47 can fire compared to a normal hand gun how much rounds you can let out before reloading. Your right you can do damage with about anything. But still no reason has been said why not to ban them. Just a bunch of this and that. Im pretty sure the guy who made ak47s m16s etc. Made them for warfare.

 

Yes, I am familiar with how fast they can fired and it is slower than a handgun. I have an AK, an SKS, an 2 AR15's, a few other rifles and I am not sure how many handguns but for sure I have four that I regularly carry. Full auto might be faster but it is extremely inaccurate. I have yet to see any spree killing with a full auto used. It is true that rifles are made for warfare but that is because most warfare isn't at 20 feet which coincidentally is where most shootings including spree killings take place.

 

The rifles have the huge advantage of range. We have yet to have a rampage or spree killing at 200 yards. They are up close and personal like the head shots at Sandy Hook where a small .22 pistol would likely have done the same damage.  

 

All of which is why I made my post and you apparently ignored it in order to say how fast a AK can fire. 

[tvc184]

Ok smitty you won me over but you wont change my mind about stricken gun laws. If you ever watch the first 48 the suspects always have multiple gun charges. Why is he even on the streets.

 

You hit the nail on the head. The people have multiple usually violent convictions but instead of locking them up, we want to hug them and try and sweet talk them into not committing crimes. 

 

The gun laws are already there. They should be in jail and not out killing other people but you need to ask the politicians and prosecutors on why they are still out when they have committed a violent crime. That is why we sometimes refer our cases to the federal system when they will accept one in order to get a mandatory sentence in actual prison. 

[thetragichippy]

Yes, I am familiar with how fast they can fired and it is slower than a handgun. I have an AK, an SKS, an 2 AR15's, a few other rifles and I am not sure how many handguns but for sure I have four that I regularly carry. Full auto might be faster but it is extremely inaccurate. I have yet to see any spree killing with a full auto used. It is true that rifles are made for warfare but that is because most warfare isn't at 20 feet which coincidentally is where most shootings including spree killings take place.

 

The rifles have the huge advantage of range. We have yet to have a rampage or spree killing at 200 yards. They are up close and personal like the head shots at Sandy Hook where a small .22 pistol would likely have done the same damage.  

 

All of which is why I made my post and you apparently ignored it in order to say how fast a AK can fire. 

 

Not the guy you want to break into his house at 3am...........lol

[baddog]

Instead of concentrating so much on arming teachers, which is a good idea, so much more needs to be done in the mental health arena.

Sandy Hook.....mom knew her son was a loony and capable of harming others.

Columbine....parents were nowhere around when these two were making explosives and planning their attack.

Aurora theater shooting......this guy was mentally insane. I guess it happened overnight.

Too many people walking the streets who have serious issues and doctors who think they can control them with meds. Old school days lots of these people would have visited Rusk for a stay.

[77]

Over medicating is part of the problem! jmo

[Big girl]

There was a shooting close to my house. Kids were running and a few hopped over my fence. 3 people were shot. Can you imagine how many kids would've been ki liked if the assailant had a tech 9.

[tvc184]

There was a shooting close to my house. Kids were running and a few hopped over my fence. 3 people were shot. Can you imagine how many kids would've been ki liked if the assailant had a tech 9.

 

The same number. 

[77]

And once again you want to blame the gun instead of the shooter!

[smitty]

There was a shooting close to my house. Kids were running and a few hopped over my fence. 3 people were shot. Can you imagine how many kids would've been ki liked if the assailant had a tech 9.

If guns were banned, I presume this is where you are going, the assailant would still have any weapon he/she wanted.  That's why they call them CRIMINALS!  They do not abide by the laws that honest people do! 

BigGirl, I'll tell something:  I'll move next door to you.  I'll let the world know that I have a ton of weapons in my house.  But -- I'll also let the world know that you don't have any weapons at yours.  Who's more likely going to get robbed??  And I bet, just bet, that criminals/thiefs will show up at your house with GUNS!!  And you tell them -- "mr thief, those weapons you have are banned you aren't supposed to have them!"  You might be able to excape while they are on the floor dying laughing!  

[Big girl]

Instead of concentrating so much on arming teachers, which is a good idea, so much more needs to be done in the mental health arena.

Sandy Hook.....mom knew her son was a loony and capable of harming others.

Columbine....parents were nowhere around when these two were making explosives and planning their attack.

Aurora theater shooting......this guy was mentally insane. I guess it happened overnight.

Too many people walking the streets who have serious issues and doctors who think they can control them with meds. Old school days lots of these people would have visited Rusk for a stay.

That makes a lot of sense

[Big girl]

And once again you want to blame the gun instead of the shooter!

no, I am just happy that the guy didnt have an AK47

[bullets13]

Dude you no how fast a ak47 can fire compared to a normal hand gun how much rounds you can let out before reloading. Your right you can do damage with about anything. But still no reason has been said why not to ban them. Just a bunch of this and that. Im pretty sure the guy who made ak47s m16s etc. Made them for warfare.

A semi-auto pistol and a semi-auto rifle both fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger. Theoretically, you should be able to pull the trigger at the same speed on either. That being said, it is much easier to rapidly and accurately fire a pistol at close range than a rifle. Yes, a rifle magazine holds more rounds, but I'm no expert marksman and I can change a pistol magazine in under 3 seconds and it's much easier to reaquire a target with a pistol than a rifle when your target is close. The whole "assault rifle" argument is completely off the mark, with tvc's stats on murders with semi-auto high capacity rifles being all any sane person should need to see to understand this. There are MILLIONS of them in the US, but they kill an average of less than 50 people a year. 99.6% of gun murders occur from other types of guns. I'm still having trouble understanding what you think an "assault rifle" (made up term, by the way) ban will actually accomplish.

[LumRaiderFan]

I can "assault" someone with a pellet rifle...even without pellets!

[PAMFAM10]

Still no reason has been put forth as a reason not to ban ak47s like guns.

[bullets13]

Still no reason has been put forth as a reason not to ban ak47s like guns.

You still haven't given a realistic reason to ban them. Stats have been given as to why banning them will have no effect. You also have not addressed those stats.

[tvc184]

Still no reason has been put forth as a reason not to ban ak47s like guns.

 

The Second Amendment comes to mind. 

 

It is also a foot in the door of banning. Hey, we banned this one, what next?

 

The use of the media version of an assault weapon in murder is almost non-existent but the anti-gunners are really after them. The question should be why and I think that I have already answered it as being merely a first step. Why be so concerned about a weapon that is owned in the millions yet is almost never used in a murder? 

 

It is political only and has no bearing on crime or deaths. 

[5GallonBucket]

some people will never get it guys.....they would rather the govt own them and their guns