Current Active Shooter in San Bernardino

[RunInRed 16,635]

So do more guns on the streets make us more or less safe? Where is not there a parallel level of activity in other well-developed countries around the world?

Anyone?

[RunInRed 16,635]

What would one hunt with an AR-15? Honest question, not being a smart ass.

Or need "1000s of rounds of ammo" ?

Authorities later found thousands more rounds of ammunition at the couple's residence, 12 pipe bombs and hundreds of tools that "could be used to construct IEDs or pipe bombs," the chief said.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/03/us/san-bernardino-shooting/index.html

[AUUSN 823]

So for all of you who are clamoring about the politicians should do something....well what do you say about more people die in vehicle related accidents. Here is an article that is interesting to read. Now if you take suicides out of the statistics (the reason you would take it out is because people who decide to kill themselves would find another way to do it without a gun if they were banned). So why aren't you clamoring about not letting teens drive? Where are the charts ausn? You put up ones about guns but where is the same for motor vehicles? Reason: people believe vehicles are needed and those are typically accidents with a few exceptions...well guns are tools also and like any tool can be used to kill people. However, if you wanted to commit mass murder it isn't that hard to carry out...bombs can be made easily enough to kill many people...what is it (that those of you who want something done) want done? I am tired of people calling for something to be done but yet fail to explain what they want done....why because they probably don't know nor do they really know if it would make a difference....

here are some more stats

Annual United States Road Crash Statistics

• Over 37,000 people die in road crashes each year
  
• An additional 2.35 million are injured or disabled
  
• Over 1,600 children under 15 years of age die each year
  
• Nearly 8,000 people are killed in crashes involving drivers ages 16-20
  
• Road crashes cost the U.S. $230.6 billion per year, or an average of $820 per person
  

I knew this post was coming.

but yet you have no answers or discussions about it but to post graphics about people dying in multiples....you have put forth no real solutions that you can debate but hide behind stupid cartoons and other things that bring no real substance but myrth only to you or those like you. You hint that you supposedly have this insight but offer nothing to the conversation and in military related threads imply that you have a greater understanding than the rest of us, you throw out that you have security clearance like that means something. What you fail to understand is that there are others on here that have clearances, have served in combat and have planned more than just tactical missions but whole campaigns but don't let that stop you...please by all means put up another one of your stupid cartoons or graphs and have yourself a big laugh...

You sound really mad.

The assault rifle meant for military and police is currently terrorizing the population. There's no need for someone to own that type of weapon. Period. That is your opinion....an AR-15 can be a good hunting rifle so can a 30-06 but I can take either and make them into an assault weapon with a little machining...so congress has made a ban on certain weapons based upon looks...so I change the look and still have the same weapon. I don't think it is a problem for people to own AR-15's nor hunting rifles...So your statement about the assault rifle is totally incorrect and statistics don't back you up...there are more people killed with handguns vice assault rifles in this country...even when you take out suicides...mainly in the 16-24 year old male population which ties more directly into gang violence...or violence in general...

I don't doubt that handguns kill more people. I'm talking a bout mass shooting / active shooter events. The assault weapon is the weapon of choice because it can mow down the most people in the shortest amount of time. That is a weapon of terror.

[TitanTiger 20,572]

Supposedly it was 2000 rounds of 9mm ammo and 2000 rounds of long rifle ammo. If you're an avid shooter and go to the range 2-3 times a month, that really isn't a lot. A box of 9mm is 50 rounds. If you shot on average a box and a half per visit and went 3 times a month, that's enough to last about 8-9 months. And from time to time, sites like slickguns.com offers a big sale on a case (500 or so depending on caliber) so people will bulk buy all at once rather than a box or two at a time.

[RunInRed 16,635]

Serious Question: How many times has an armed citizen stopped one of these mass murders?

This is not a serious question. I can put a list together for you just give me some time. If I can produce 10 by the end of the day would that be sufficient? How about 15? 20?

The problem with your question, though, is most of these take place in municipalities and locations that have strict gun laws or outright prohibition (see: gun free zones). Good-guys with guns don't always work in these situations, but either do seat belts in auto accidents.

I would like to see just one. I mean, seriously, when's the last time you heard a domestic terror/shooting situation which is stopped stone cold due to an armed citizen who intervenes? Maybe it's happened but I don't recall. It's much easier for me to recall Charleston, Ft. Hood, Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg, Columbine, etc.

To be clear, to me, the definition of "gun control" is not outright prohibition. But these assault style weapons, access to 1000s of rounds of ammo, body armor and the such ... something needs to be done ... come on. How many more of these incidents are going to have to happen?

Also, just to clarify, I realize regardless what you pass, bad things still can happen, and probably will. But that rationale is not justification for not doing anything. Are we safer today than 50 years ago since car safety measures have been beefed up? Are we safer as a general society since anti-smoking measures have been put it place? Think about it ...

[TitanTiger 20,572]

Serious Question: How many times has an armed citizen stopped one of these mass murders?

This is not a serious question. I can put a list together for you just give me some time. If I can produce 10 by the end of the day would that be sufficient? How about 15? 20?

The problem with your question, though, is most of these take place in municipalities and locations that have strict gun laws or outright prohibition (see: gun free zones). Good-guys with guns don't always work in these situations, but either do seat belts in auto accidents.

I would like to see just one. I mean, seriously, when's the last time you heard a domestic terror/shooting situation which is stopped stone cold due to an armed citizen who intervenes? Maybe it's happened but I don't recall. It's much easier for me to recall Charleston, Ft. Hood, Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg, Columbine, etc.

To be clear, to me, the definition of "gun control" is not outright prohibition. But these assault style weapons, access to 1000s of rounds of ammo, body armor and the such ... something needs to be done ... come on. How many more of these incidents are going to have to happen?

Also, just to clarify, I realize regardless what you pass, bad things still can happen, and probably will. But that rationale is not justification for not doing anything. Are we safer today than 50 years ago since car safety measures have been beefed up? Are we safer as a general society since anti-smoking measures have been put it place? Think about it ...

Here's a list of 12 instances:

http://controversialtimes.com/issues/constitutional-rights/12-times-mass-shootings-were-stopped-by-good-guys-with-guns/

[AUUSN 823]

Serious Question: How many times has an armed citizen stopped one of these mass murders?

This is not a serious question. I can put a list together for you just give me some time. If I can produce 10 by the end of the day would that be sufficient? How about 15? 20?

The problem with your question, though, is most of these take place in municipalities and locations that have strict gun laws or outright prohibition (see: gun free zones). Good-guys with guns don't always work in these situations, but either do seat belts in auto accidents.

I would like to see just one. I mean, seriously, when's the last time you heard a domestic terror/shooting situation which is stopped stone cold due to an armed citizen who intervenes? Maybe it's happened but I don't recall. It's much easier for me to recall Charleston, Ft. Hood, Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg, Columbine, etc.

To be clear, to me, the definition of "gun control" is not outright prohibition. But these assault style weapons, access to 1000s of rounds of ammo, body armor and the such ... something needs to be done ... come on. How many more of these incidents are going to have to happen?

Also, just to clarify, I realize regardless what you pass, bad things still can happen, and probably will. But that rationale is not justification for not doing anything. Are we safer today than 50 years ago since car safety measures have been beefed up? Are we safer as a general society since anti-smoking measures have been put it place? Think about it ...

The Admins on this forum are freaking awesome!

[quietfan 233]

...

Ordinary people with a workplace grudge don't have the kind of stuff he had in his home.

Much of America pauses weekly to watch ordinary people who have long guns, assault rifles & pistols, and who improvise explosive devices. The show is on A&E and called "Duck Dynasty". And the Robertsons are not atypical of many Southerners or other Americans (Well, except in their wealth).

A few years after finishing high school, I visited my favorite high school teacher and went 'dynamiting' for fish in his pond. (The fishing wasn't in my plans, but I let him handle the explosives while I watched from a safer distance.) He wasn't particularly extremist in any of his political views, but he had guns in his house and kept dynamite secured in his barn...just a good ol' boy who grew up in the rural South. And other than probably breaking some fish and wildlife regulations, I see nothing wrong with that, nor anything psychotically abnormal.

My point of course is that merely possessing that sort of gear is not enough to convict or even suspect someone of radical terrorism. For that matter, neither is simply being Muslim or of Middle Eastern descent. Now a murder indictment is certainly in order based on these shooters' actions, had they lived.

[Strychnine 1,804]

Serious Question: How many times has an armed citizen stopped one of these mass murders?

This is not a serious question. I can put a list together for you just give me some time. If I can produce 10 by the end of the day would that be sufficient? How about 15? 20?

The problem with your question, though, is most of these take place in municipalities and locations that have strict gun laws or outright prohibition (see: gun free zones). Good-guys with guns don't always work in these situations, but either do seat belts in auto accidents.

I would like to see just one. I mean, seriously, when's the last time you heard a domestic terror/shooting situation which is stopped stone cold due to an armed citizen who intervenes? Maybe it's happened but I don't recall. It's much easier for me to recall Charleston, Ft. Hood, Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg, Columbine, etc.

To be clear, to me, the definition of "gun control" is not outright prohibition. But these assault style weapons, access to 1000s of rounds of ammo, body armor and the such ... something needs to be done ... come on. How many more of these incidents are going to have to happen?

I already mentioned adding semi-automatic "assault weapons" to the NFA, and making the process of acquiring them the same as that to acquire a suppressor or short-barreled rifle.

Access to thousands rounds of ammo is irrelevant, and I'm not going to buy my ammo in 50 round boxes with the quantity I go through.

[TitanTiger 20,572]

Serious Question: How many times has an armed citizen stopped one of these mass murders?

This is not a serious question. I can put a list together for you just give me some time. If I can produce 10 by the end of the day would that be sufficient? How about 15? 20?

The problem with your question, though, is most of these take place in municipalities and locations that have strict gun laws or outright prohibition (see: gun free zones). Good-guys with guns don't always work in these situations, but either do seat belts in auto accidents.

I would like to see just one. I mean, seriously, when's the last time you heard a domestic terror/shooting situation which is stopped stone cold due to an armed citizen who intervenes? Maybe it's happened but I don't recall. It's much easier for me to recall Charleston, Ft. Hood, Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg, Columbine, etc.

To be clear, to me, the definition of "gun control" is not outright prohibition. But these assault style weapons, access to 1000s of rounds of ammo, body armor and the such ... something needs to be done ... come on. How many more of these incidents are going to have to happen?

Also, just to clarify, I realize regardless what you pass, bad things still can happen, and probably will. But that rationale is not justification for not doing anything. Are we safer today than 50 years ago since car safety measures have been beefed up? Are we safer as a general society since anti-smoking measures have been put it place? Think about it ...

Here's a list of 12 instances:

http://controversial...guys-with-guns/

Here's another list, with some overlapping from above:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

[RunInRed 16,635]

Here's a list of 12 instances:

http://controversial...guys-with-guns/

Realize that in every situation, the instance was stopped by a personal handgun (or similar), not an AR15, etc. All I'm advocating here is for a little common sense preventative measures to be put in place. But this argument has been so politically polarized, just about like everything else in the country, I'm afraid the status quo will prevail and we'll soon be revisiting this same topic. I wish some one with courage on the Right in a leadership position would standup to the NRA, etc.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

What would one hunt with an AR-15? Honest question, not being a smart ass.

Here is a link that gives you a guide to the ammo for the AR and what you can hunt with this weapon...http://www.military.com/entertainment/outdoor-guide/ar-hunting/calibers-that-hunt.html Kind of useful guide if you are into hunting with the AR

[MDM4AU 336]

What would one hunt with an AR-15? Honest question, not being a smart ass.

Wild hogs is one answer. They will destroy your property and are really fast.

[RunInRed 16,635]

So we're wild hog hunting now? SMDH

[Strychnine 1,804]

Here's a list of 12 instances:

http://controversial...guys-with-guns/

Realize that in every situation, the instance was stopped by a personal handgun (or similar), not an AR15, etc. All I'm advocating here is for a little common sense preventative measures to be put in place. But this argument has been so politically polarized, just about like everything else in the country, I'm afraid the status quo will prevail and we'll soon be revisiting this same topic. I wish some one with courage on the Right in a leadership position would standup to the NRA, etc.

If I knew I was going to a gunfight, I would bring an AR or AK instead of a handgun if the gunfight itself cannot be avoided. However, none of my AR's or AK's are weapons that I carry around regularly. It's just not practical to carry a slung rifle around in everyday life. Most people leave their "assault weapons" at home, and carry a handgun for defense or intervention.

[MDM4AU 336]

So we're wild hog hunting now? SMDH

Keep shaking your head. He asked a question and I answered. No agenda involved. You are just as political and agenda-driven about this as anyone you oppose. Stop pretending.

[TitanTiger 20,572]

So we're wild hog hunting now? SMDH

I have heard of that. People don't hunt them so much for meat but because they are a major nuisance if they are on your land. I didn't realize an AR-15 was a popular weapon to do it with.

[TitanTiger 20,572]

Here's a list of 12 instances:

http://controversial...guys-with-guns/

Realize that in every situation, the instance was stopped by a personal handgun (or similar), not an AR15, etc. All I'm advocating here is for a little common sense preventative measures to be put in place. But this argument has been so politically polarized, just about like everything else in the country, I'm afraid the status quo will prevail and we'll soon be revisiting this same topic. I wish some one with courage on the Right in a leadership position would standup to the NRA, etc.

If I knew I was going to a gunfight, I would bring an AR or AK instead of a handgun if the gunfight itself cannot be avoided. However, none of my AR's or AK's are weapons that I carry around regularly. It's just not practical to carry a slung rifle around in everyday life. Most people leave their "assault weapons" at home, and carry a handgun for defense or intervention.

Would you be opposed to more restrictions, registration, more extensive background checks for certain classes of weapons like an AR-15? It seems to me like there should be a difference in the process and difficulty in obtaining a 9mm or .40 cal vs a high powered rifle like an AR-15.

[AURaptor 1,129]

Networks & cable newsies are still baffled as to why 2 young Muslims would shoot up a Christmas party.

[Strychnine 1,804]

Here's a list of 12 instances:

http://controversial...guys-with-guns/

Realize that in every situation, the instance was stopped by a personal handgun (or similar), not an AR15, etc. All I'm advocating here is for a little common sense preventative measures to be put in place. But this argument has been so politically polarized, just about like everything else in the country, I'm afraid the status quo will prevail and we'll soon be revisiting this same topic. I wish some one with courage on the Right in a leadership position would standup to the NRA, etc.

If I knew I was going to a gunfight, I would bring an AR or AK instead of a handgun if the gunfight itself cannot be avoided. However, none of my AR's or AK's are weapons that I carry around regularly. It's just not practical to carry a slung rifle around in everyday life. Most people leave their "assault weapons" at home, and carry a handgun for defense or intervention.

Would you be opposed to more restrictions, registration, more extensive background checks for certain classes of weapons like an AR-15? It seems to me like there should be a difference in the process and difficulty in obtaining a 9mm or .40 cal vs a high powered rifle like an AR-15.

I already said that I would have no real problem with adding semi-automatic "assault weapons" to the NFA, thus subjecting them to the same acquisition process as that for automatic weapons, suppressors, and short-barreled rifles. Having to deal with an ATF application alone would deter most people. I also have no problem with mandatory registration, more extensive background checks, and eliminating the ability of private sales to bypass both. I would support a mandatory firearms license necessary to possess a firearm.

The real resistance comes to measures like banning "assault weapons" or magazine capacity limits or ammunition limits. All firearms are potential mass-shooting weapons. A good shot can kill just as many people from an elevated position with a bolt-action rifle. The problem is not the type of weapon, it's how easy it is to purchase firearms in general. These two people had no business owning a single-shot .22, a Glock 19, or an AR-15.

[TitanTiger 20,572]

Here's a list of 12 instances:

http://controversial...guys-with-guns/

Realize that in every situation, the instance was stopped by a personal handgun (or similar), not an AR15, etc. All I'm advocating here is for a little common sense preventative measures to be put in place. But this argument has been so politically polarized, just about like everything else in the country, I'm afraid the status quo will prevail and we'll soon be revisiting this same topic. I wish some one with courage on the Right in a leadership position would standup to the NRA, etc.

If I knew I was going to a gunfight, I would bring an AR or AK instead of a handgun if the gunfight itself cannot be avoided. However, none of my AR's or AK's are weapons that I carry around regularly. It's just not practical to carry a slung rifle around in everyday life. Most people leave their "assault weapons" at home, and carry a handgun for defense or intervention.

Would you be opposed to more restrictions, registration, more extensive background checks for certain classes of weapons like an AR-15? It seems to me like there should be a difference in the process and difficulty in obtaining a 9mm or .40 cal vs a high powered rifle like an AR-15.

I already said that I would have no real problem with adding semi-automatic "assault weapons" to the NFA, thus subjecting them to the same acquisition process as that for automatic weapons, suppressors, and short-barreled rifles. Having to deal with an ATF application alone would deter most people. I also have no problem with mandatory registration, more extensive background checks, and eliminating the ability of private sales to bypass both. I would support a mandatory firearms license necessary to possess a firearm.

The real resistance comes to measures like banning "assault weapons" or magazine capacity limits or ammunition limits. All firearms are potential mass-shooting weapons. A good shot can kill just as many people from an elevated position with a bolt-action rifle. The problem is not the type of weapon, it's how easy it is to purchase firearms in general. These two people had no business owning a single-shot .22, a Glock 19, or an AR-15.

I have no problem with any of the things you mention above. In fact, it sounds like common sense.

It's funny to me how people argue against mandatory registration. As if knowing who owns weapons will make a hill of beans difference if the political climate moved to somehow repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban gun ownership. If such a thing happened, there would be a date to surrender guns by and anyone in possession of them after that date would face severe criminal penalties. And you and your little band of merry men in the woods are not going to fight off the strongest military in the world.

I sometimes hear constitutional objections, but a registration process doesn't take away your right to keep and bear arms anymore than voter registration means you're not allowed to go vote.

[RunInRed 16,635]

So we're wild hog hunting now? SMDH

Keep shaking your head. He asked a question and I answered. No agenda involved. You are just as political and agenda-driven about this as anyone you oppose. Stop pretending.

The only agenda I have is having a safer place for us all to live.

[Strychnine 1,804]

Here's a list of 12 instances:

http://controversial...guys-with-guns/

Realize that in every situation, the instance was stopped by a personal handgun (or similar), not an AR15, etc. All I'm advocating here is for a little common sense preventative measures to be put in place. But this argument has been so politically polarized, just about like everything else in the country, I'm afraid the status quo will prevail and we'll soon be revisiting this same topic. I wish some one with courage on the Right in a leadership position would standup to the NRA, etc.

If I knew I was going to a gunfight, I would bring an AR or AK instead of a handgun if the gunfight itself cannot be avoided. However, none of my AR's or AK's are weapons that I carry around regularly. It's just not practical to carry a slung rifle around in everyday life. Most people leave their "assault weapons" at home, and carry a handgun for defense or intervention.

Would you be opposed to more restrictions, registration, more extensive background checks for certain classes of weapons like an AR-15? It seems to me like there should be a difference in the process and difficulty in obtaining a 9mm or .40 cal vs a high powered rifle like an AR-15.

I already said that I would have no real problem with adding semi-automatic "assault weapons" to the NFA, thus subjecting them to the same acquisition process as that for automatic weapons, suppressors, and short-barreled rifles. Having to deal with an ATF application alone would deter most people. I also have no problem with mandatory registration, more extensive background checks, and eliminating the ability of private sales to bypass both. I would support a mandatory firearms license necessary to possess a firearm.

The real resistance comes to measures like banning "assault weapons" or magazine capacity limits or ammunition limits. All firearms are potential mass-shooting weapons. A good shot can kill just as many people from an elevated position with a bolt-action rifle. The problem is not the type of weapon, it's how easy it is to purchase firearms in general. These two people had no business owning a single-shot .22, a Glock 19, or an AR-15.

I have no problem with any of the things you mention above. In fact, it sounds like common sense.

It's funny to me how people argue against mandatory registration. As if knowing who owns weapons will make a hill of beans difference if the political climate moved to somehow repeal the 2nd Amendment and ban gun ownership. If such a thing happened, there would be a date to surrender guns by and anyone in possession of them after that date would face severe criminal penalties. And you and your little band of merry men in the woods are not going to fight off the strongest military in the world.

I sometimes hear constitutional objections, but a registration process doesn't take away your right to keep and bear arms anymore than voter registration means you're not allowed to go vote.

The government knows I own automatic weapons, three of them, and they have yet to arrive at my door demanding their surrender. The very concept of government agents going door-to-door searching homes for firearms is ridiculous. I usually classify people discussing that fear relative to firearm registration as people no longer worth talking to. In the case of armed insurrection, the government can field heavily-armored vehicles, artillery, a dizzying array of missiles, and carry out airstrikes. The Bushmaster you bought at Wal-Mart will quickly become useless. Military personnel and their equipment would have to join the rebellion for that to be much of a fight.

I think common sense measures like registration, licensing, and more extensive background checks could gain more traction if they weren't frequently attached to hysterical and reactive things like "assault weapon" bans and magazine limits.

[MDM4AU 336]

So we're wild hog hunting now? SMDH

Keep shaking your head. He asked a question and I answered. No agenda involved. You are just as political and agenda-driven about this as anyone you oppose. Stop pretending.

The only agenda I have is having a safer place for us all to live.

uh huh...

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

Here's a list of 12 instances:

http://controversial...guys-with-guns/

Realize that in every situation, the instance was stopped by a personal handgun (or similar), not an AR15, etc. All I'm advocating here is for a little common sense preventative measures to be put in place. But this argument has been so politically polarized, just about like everything else in the country, I'm afraid the status quo will prevail and we'll soon be revisiting this same topic. I wish some one with courage on the Right in a leadership position would standup to the NRA, etc.

If I knew I was going to a gunfight, I would bring an AR or AK instead of a handgun if the gunfight itself cannot be avoided. However, none of my AR's or AK's are weapons that I carry around regularly. It's just not practical to carry a slung rifle around in everyday life. Most people leave their "assault weapons" at home, and carry a handgun for defense or intervention.

Would you be opposed to more restrictions, registration, more extensive background checks for certain classes of weapons like an AR-15? It seems to me like there should be a difference in the process and difficulty in obtaining a 9mm or .40 cal vs a high powered rifle like an AR-15.

so do you also want to ban the 30.06? Which is a common hunting rifle?