Fox Commentators Call For Assault Rifle Ban???

[LumRaiderFan]

What's going on here...I thought all us conservatives were supposed to agree with all that is said on Fox news.

[tvc184]

A rifle ban is generally nonsense to stopping these incidents. 

Way back in 1991 I was speaking as a police officer at one of the service groups like maybe the Lion's Club at their monthly lunch and meeting. At the end of my 10 minute presentation I asked for any questions (and there is always questions for the police). The only question that I took (as it took up all of my time) was from a guy that wanted to know about banning certain long guns. He specifically brought up a couple of incidents with rifles or shotguns and one that I remember was the San Ysidro, CA McDonald's. In that case a guy used a handgun but also an Uzi sub machine gun (although I think it was a semi-auto version) and a shotgun. At the time it was the deadliest shooting in US history. The guy's idea way back more than 30 years ago was that we need to get rid of those evil long guns.

I did not expect the question but I did have an answer. I told then that for most such shootings, the long guns were "scary" looking but were a joke for speed. At those ranges of up close and personal, a handgun might be much deadlier. The reason is that with a handgun you could carry magazines with almost 20 rounds and they could be reloaded much faster by an untrained person. In that meeting I predicted that some day a guy with a handgun only would slaughter a lot of people with something like a Glock where a person could carry 15 or 20 magazines in his blue jean pockets and reload in about two seconds. That is 400 rounds of ammo in his pockets. Some of the response was something like.... "Really??". 

About a month so later, we had the Killeen Luby's shooting. In that case a guy with only handguns (one was the 9mm Glock) killed 23 innocent people and wounded 27 more. At that moment in time it was the deadliest shooting in US history. Hmmm... called that one? Also, this shooting took a couple of minutes, not three hours as the recent Orlando shooting. 

That was the deadliest until Virginia Tech where 33 were killed. His weapons? A Glock and a .22 pistol. Hmmm.... the two deadliest shootings in US history were from handguns and in very short time frames. In VT the campus police were on scene and the shooter had to do his dirty work quickly. Handguns allow a person to carry a lot of ammo that is much easier to handle, much quicker to reload and much easier to conceal until the shooting starts. 

Of course we have since had Sandy Hook which famously was with an AR-15. Here is the deal though, that same incident would have been just as deadly with a handgun and maybe deadlier. Why? To carry that many rifle rounds it takes relatively huge magazines that are much harder to carry and use. They weigh much more. In Sandy Hook he shot children at point blank range. To think that a 9mm pistol would be less deadly to the head or heart is ridiculous. Like I said with reloading (less than 3 seconds unpracticed and a good person can do it in roughly a 1 second), it might be deadlier. In fact that renders the magazine capacity as an equally stupid crime deterrent. For example, if we cut magazines to the typical 10 rounds (as non high capacity), here is how much it would slow a person down. At short ranges I can get off about 15 rounds on target in maybe 8 seconds. Take two seconds to reload another 15 round magazine and 8 more seconds to empty the handgun again and I have expended 30 rounds on target in 18 seconds. If I had to reload twice by using 10 round magazines to hamper me, it would take about 20 seconds to shoot the same 30 rounds on target with the same number of rounds.

WOOHOO!!, the lower capacity magazine made me take 2 more seconds to complete my crime. Great stuff huh? 

The long guns have a huge advantage. They can reach out and touch someone. An AR-15 might be able to kill reasonably well at 200-300 yards. That is a HUGE advantage over a handgun which might have an effective range for most people of 15-25 yards. 

In these shooting incidents however, the shootings aren't happening at 300 yards. They are happening feet away. Stand in the middle of a room with a pistol and unless the room is more than 50 yards wide (mighty big room), everyone that you see is in a fairly easy kill range. 

So while these big scary rifles are being used as the evil in order to justify gun control, to think that it will stop anything at all is silly. Of course most people right now including most of the left wing liberal Democrats are saying, "We aren't against handguns (which is an outright lie) and only the evil AR-15 style weapons". That is merely a scare tactic to swing public opinion. Anyone that doesn't say that the same guy in Orlando couldn't have killed 50 people in less time than the incident took with any of several handguns used for home self defense is either a liar or has very little knowledge of firearms. Like Killeen and VT showed us, we can have huge numbers of victims in only a couple of minutes with handguns that you can buy over the counter at Academy. 

And a single guy in the nightclub in Orlando coming from behind the shooter could have ended this horrific crime in seconds at a huge saving in innocent lives. Of course the club was likely a gun free zone. See how well that worked out............... 

 

[stevenash]

So very well articulated.  This one is a big challenge for Nappy and Big Girl to find a lefty blog to compete with it.

[LumRaiderFan]

17 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

A rifle ban is generally nonsense to stopping these incidents. 

Way back in 1991 I was speaking as a police officer at one of the service groups like maybe the Lion's Club at their monthly lunch and meeting. At the end of my 10 minute presentation I asked for any questions (and there is always questions for the police). The only question that I took (as it took up all of my time) was from a guy that wanted to know about banning certain long guns. He specifically brought up a couple of incidents with rifles or shotguns and one that I remember was the San Ysidro, CA McDonald's. In that case a guy used a handgun but also an Uzi sub machine gun (although I think it was a semi-auto version) and a shotgun. At the time it was the deadliest shooting in US history. The guy's idea way back more than 30 years ago was that we need to get rid of those evil long guns.

I did not expect the question but I did have an answer. I told then that for most such shootings, the long guns were "scary" looking but were a joke for speed. At those ranges of up close and personal, a handgun might be much deadlier. The reason is that with a handgun you could carry magazines with almost 20 rounds and they could be reloaded much faster by an untrained person. In that meeting I predicted that some day a guy with a handgun only would slaughter a lot of people with something like a Glock where a person could carry 15 or 20 magazines in his blue jean pockets and reload in about two seconds. That is 400 rounds of ammo in his pockets. Some of the response was something like.... "Really??". 

About a month so later, we had the Killeen Luby's shooting. In that case a guy with only handguns (one was the 9mm Glock) killed 23 innocent people and wounded 27 more. At that moment in time it was the deadliest shooting in US history. Hmmm... called that one? Also, this shooting took a couple of minutes, not three hours as the recent Orlando shooting. 

That was the deadliest until Virginia Tech where 33 were killed. His weapons? A Glock and a .22 pistol. Hmmm.... the two deadliest shootings in US history were from handguns and in very short time frames. In VT the campus police were on scene and the shooter had to do his dirty work quickly. Handguns allow a person to carry a lot of ammo that is much easier to handle, much quicker to reload and much easier to conceal until the shooting starts. 

Of course we have since had Sandy Hook which famously was with an AR-15. Here is the deal though, that same incident would have been just as deadly with a handgun and maybe deadlier. Why? To carry that many rifle rounds it takes relatively huge magazines that are much harder to carry and use. They weigh much more. In Sandy Hook he shot children at point blank range. To think that a 9mm pistol would be less deadly to the head or heart is ridiculous. Like I said with reloading (less than 3 seconds unpracticed and a good person can do it in roughly a 1 second), it might be deadlier. In fact that renders the magazine capacity as an equally stupid crime deterrent. For example, if we cut magazines to the typical 10 rounds (as non high capacity), here is how much it would slow a person down. At short ranges I can get off about 15 rounds on target in maybe 8 seconds. Take two seconds to reload another 15 round magazine and 8 more seconds to empty the handgun again and I have expended 30 rounds on target in 18 seconds. If I had to reload twice by using 10 round magazines to hamper me, it would take about 20 seconds to shoot the same 30 rounds on target with the same number of rounds.

WOOHOO!!, the lower capacity magazine made me take 2 more seconds to complete my crime. Great stuff huh? 

The long guns have a huge advantage. They can reach out and touch someone. An AR-15 might be able to kill reasonably well at 200-300 yards. That is a HUGE advantage over a handgun which might have an effective range for most people of 15-25 yards. 

In these shooting incidents however, the shootings aren't happening at 300 yards. They are happening feet away. Stand in the middle of a room with a pistol and unless the room is more than 50 yards wide (mighty big room), everyone that you see is in a fairly easy kill range. 

So while these big scary rifles are being used as the evil in order to justify gun control, to think that it will stop anything at all is silly. Of course most people right now including most of the left wing liberal Democrats are saying, "We aren't against handguns (which is an outright lie) and only the evil AR-15 style weapons". That is merely a scare tactic to swing public opinion. Anyone that doesn't say that the same guy in Orlando couldn't have killed 50 people in less time than the incident took with any of several handguns used for home self defense is either a liar or has very little knowledge of firearms. Like Killeen and VT showed us, we can have huge numbers of victims in only a couple of minutes with handguns that you can buy over the counter at Academy. 

And a single guy in the nightclub in Orlando coming from behind the shooter could have ended this horrific crime in seconds at a huge saving in innocent lives. Of course the club was likely a gun free zone. See how well that worked out............... 

 

Very good post...and the bold is so true.

[tvc184]

3 hours ago, LumRaiderFan said:

Very good post...and the bold is so true.

 I was reading a comment on Facebook about this situation. A guy said that if a person trying to help the situation by taking out the bad guy and had an AR 15, he would have blasted  away with it in a wild shootout trying to kill the bad guy and would have maybe killed another hundred innocent people. 

Such is the rationale of the idiots.  I guess it is like, I want to kill the bad guy so I'm going to shoot all over the room and take out a bunch of innocents. Maybe somewhere in my spraying around I will get the bad guy if I'm lucky.

Therefore his conclusion was that no one other than the police could have stopped this situation. A firearm in self-defense would never work  without it being just as deadly to innocent people as the bad guy. 

Ooookay......

[Englebert]

57 minutes ago, tvc184 said:

 I was reading a comment on Facebook about this situation. A guy said that if a person trying to help the situation by taking out the bad guy and had an AR 15, he would have blasted  away with it in a wild shootout trying to kill the bad guy and would have maybe killed another hundred innocent people. 

Such is the rationale of the idiots.  I guess it is like, I want to kill the bad guy so I'm going to shoot all over the room and take out a bunch of innocents. Maybe somewhere in my spraying around I will get the bad guy if I'm lucky.

Therefore his conclusion was that no one other than the police could have stopped this situation. A firearm in self-defense would never work  without it being just as deadly to innocent people as the bad guy. 

Ooookay......

I hear this rationale all the time. I always ask for a example of this happening. I never get an answer.

[TxHoops]

On June 15, 2016 at 4:47 PM, BLUEDOVE3 said:

“There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high powered weaponry is too easy to get. That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don’t have the right to buy and maintain mortars — even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades. That’s because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals. They have that right in the name of public safety.”

This is the hidden content, please

• Sign In
• or
• Sign Up

What the heck are you doing Dove?  Don't you know watching that mess is hazardous to your mental health?

[stevenash]

I agree- He can get better info from Dan Rather, Brian Williams,and Katie Couric

[tvc184]

I just looked at the FBI files on types of weapons used, I looked at TX in 2010 (since I had that saved and didn't have to run another search). 

In 2010 rifles of all types (not just the dreaded AR-15 and AK-47 types) resulted in 34 murders. Personal weapons of hands/feet/fists/etc resulted in 109 murders. Hmmmm..... hands and feet killed 3 times as many people as rifles. I have no clue but I would bet that if we broke that down into "assault" rifles, it would be something like 3 - 109. 

Knives were responsible for 202 murders.

Yeah, banning "assault" rifles will solve our problems. Not much murder without those. 

[Englebert]

I have a question. Why do we let terrorists vote?

I've been hearing since the Orlando shooting a bunch of the anti-gun nutcases asking "Why do we give terrorists guns?" So if a person is defined as a terrorist, I want to know why we still allow them to vote.

I also have been hearing from a bunch of anti-gun elitists saying that we need to ban guns while being surrounded by security. Well my gun is my bodyguard. I can't afford to surround myself will full-time human bodyguards. I want to know why these elitists think they should take my bodyguard but keep theirs.

Sorry for the rant, but these anti-gun fruitbags need a good pistol whipping.

[baddog]

I think this is a good place to post my short dialogue from "All in the Family"

Gloria: Daddy, did you know that last year there were 10,000 people killed with handguns in this country?

Archie: Would it make you feel any better, little girl, if they was pushed out of windows?

[nappyroots]

22 hours ago, stevenash said:

I agree- He can get better info from Dan Rather, Brian Williams,and Katie Couric

why not get it from hannity and oreilly instead

[Englebert]

1 minute ago, nappyroots said:

why not get it from hannity and oreilly instead

Hannity and O'Reilly have not been caught or even accused of doctoring tape or flat out lying to the American people.

I know the left-wing media sweeps the antics of above mentioned under the rug, but even you has to know that they have purposely lied to American people.

You accused Hannity and O'Reilly of making racists remarks on an earlier thread, and I challenged you to provide proof. Proof was never provided. I now challenge you to provide proof where Hannity or O'Reilly has doctored tape or purposely lied to the American public like the other three have done.