Three 3rd graders, three adults killed by shooter at Nashville elementary school

[Mikey 16,779]

1 minute ago, TitanTiger said:

You're oversimplifying.

You can fire very rapidly with this type of weapon, with a level of accuracy, projectile velocity, and damage inflicted that handguns and normal rifles can't match.  And the size of the magazine matters.  Most of these come standard with a 30 round magazine and getting larger ones that hold 40, 50 or even 100 aren't hard to find.  The ability to keep firing without stopping to reload matters. 

On average, a person can empty a 100-round drum magazine in about 30 seconds.  In that same 30 seconds you could empty and reload a 10-round magazine three times, on average.  That's 30 bullets vs 100 in the same time span.  Effectively, it is "spraying" and at a rate those other firearms simply cannot match.

Those precious 8-10 seconds between emptying, ejecting, grabbing a new magazine, clicking it in place and firing again gives people time to either flee the area, get to a more secure place, or even charge and disable the shooter.

I have 17 round magazines for a couple of handguns. There are larger ones available. 10 is only an arbitrary limit placed on magazine size in certain states and cities. Projectile velocity, yes. That's why LEO's don't like it when a bad guy has long guns. I wouldn't say that any semi-auto weapon is capable of "spraying bullets", which was my point.

[Mikey 16,779]

4 minutes ago, icanthearyou said:

I need my assualt rifle in order to feel secure from the criminal element.

I do not support IRS enforcement because I should be able to cheat on my taxes without anxiety.

 

You cheat on your taxes? Must be a liberal thing.

[AU9377 5,240]

7 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

SO agree then that you want to punish those that did nothing wrong and will never do anything wrong, so that we MIGHT, keep those guns out of the hands of a very very few. 

As of 2018, there were an estimated 393 million civilian-owned firearms in the U.S., according to the Switzerland-based Small Arms Survey, a government-backed global organization. As of 2020, there were about 20 million AR-15-style weapons in the country, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade association.

Do you really think we will ever get the 20M back?

Should never have sold the damn things in the first place.
That was a bad mistake. But I do not think we can put the genie back in the bottle.
You can't simply deprive Americans of property. That would likely take a Constitutional Amendment and NEVER pass.

Go after the Mental Health Aspect first.
Increase liability around the guns. Make the owner liable for any financial claims from use of the gun.

That is doable IMHO. Confiscation? I do not see that as possible except in the Wokeist Areas of America. As soon as challenged, those laws would be overturned with this SCOTUS.

 

I don't consider it punishment in any real way to restrict those weapons.   I never even mentioned confiscation.  The first step is to stop selling and manufacturing.  If people wanted what is best for this country, this isn't a difficult first step.

We have more rules regulating Pseudophedrin than we do an AK-47 or AR-15.  Some people actually need Pseudophedrin, but are not allowed to buy it without registering because of those that abuse it and use it for making other drugs.

Personally, I see this like I see ownership of dangerous non native animals.  There are people that know how to keep large pythons.  However, many do not, leading to them being released into the wild and becoming a danger to people and our ecosystem.  The benefit of owning the animal is outweighed by the danger it poses.

[AU9377 5,240]

3 hours ago, tomcat said:

That sums it up….you need a gun to protect yourself from an idiot with a gun. 🤔

But you don't need this gun.....

[AU9377 5,240]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

She had a semi-auto weapon. It is not capable of spraying bullets. It fires one shot at a time. The same rate of fire could have been obtained by any semi-auto handgun or rifle.

It does spray at an elevated rate.

[TitanTiger 20,563]

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

I have 17 round magazines for a couple of handguns. There are larger ones available. 10 is only an arbitrary limit placed on magazine size in certain states and cities.

The norm for most pistols is about 15.  But the point is, the minimum for most of these AR style rifles is 30.  And it's nothing to find a 100 round drum magazine for them.  The ability to kill without being impeded  or potential victims having a chance to escape goes up dramatically the larger the magazine.

 

2 hours ago, Mikey said:

Projectile velocity, yes. That's why LEO's don't like it when a bad guy has long guns. I wouldn't say that any semi-auto weapon is capable of "spraying bullets", which was my point.

Velocity of course.  It renders regular Kevlar vests worthless for one.  But also, it creates a "wake" that results in far worse damage to the victim.

But also, the accuracy is greater.  All these things combined make ARs extremely efficient killing machines

[AU9377 5,240]

The real question I have is why any of you want your country to become what we are becoming.  Many of you consider yourselves to be good Christians.  You cannot square that with a desire to see more machines of death on the streets.  That is the most hypocritical position I know.

Edited March 30, 2023 by AU9377

[Son of A Tiger 586]

So many opinions and so little solutions. If the shoe fits, wear it.

[TitanTiger 20,563]

2 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

So many opinions and so little solutions. If the shoe fits, wear it.

Image no worky.

[wdefromtx 3,159]

Is the main reason many oppose banning the AR-15 because of fear of "slippery slope?" 

Other than having something that like for a ranch or playing commando on the weekends what else would you need one for? I am pro gun........but don't have an AR and don't really get all the fuss for wanting one. 

 

[Mims44 1,911]

56 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

It does spray at an elevated rate.

lol

What modification makes it shoot at 250 more rounds per min than a full auto M16?

Hell, 1,200 is faster than a FAMAS  

People also get when they speak on these RPM they are not taking into account a full minute right? But even so that would be firing a 30 round mag in 1.5seconds... manually....

 

58 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The norm for most pistols is about 15.  But the point is, the minimum for most of these AR style rifles is 30.  And it's nothing to find a 100 round drum magazine for them.  The ability to kill without being impeded  or potential victims having a chance to escape goes up dramatically the larger the magazine.

 

Velocity of course.  It renders regular Kevlar vests worthless for one.  But also, it creates a "wake" that results in far worse damage to the victim.

But also, the accuracy is greater.  All these things combined make ARs extremely efficient killing machines

Most places won't sell a 100 round mag.. and it's not for safety reasons, they are infamously crappy. The spring tension needed for 100 rounds leads to a lot of jamming/double feeds etc

You can get away with a 40 or 50 for sure.... but most people don't even mess with the 75s for the same reason.

 

To the other thing... 'regular' kevlar is a very loose term. Yes there is kevlar that won't stop a 5.56 from a ar, there's also kevlar that wont stop a 9m from a smaller firearm. Kevlar comes in a huge range of products with varying ratings.

[I_M4_AU 8,119]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I take issue with the term "squishy" as if it some liberal plot to disarm America. 

Actually it is a plot for the left to disarm America.  Remember, just 8 years ago the Supreme Court, after pressure from the LGB coalition, agreed to allow this group to marry.  Now parents are fighting the government to be able to raise their own children and the school system is teaching gender identity.  We have to have legislation to prevent minors from being mutilated by the ideology of *gender affirming care*.

 

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It seems even they thought of this right in the context of there being some reasonable regulations and restrictions on this right. 

That would be your interpretation.

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Had weaponry on the level of the AR-15 and similar firearms existed at the time, they might have been even more explicit about it.

This is a tired argument.  Back in the day there was no internet, only printing presses and rudimentary means of communication.  We are even now debating how to handle these issues in the modern world, but have not taken the right to free speech or the right to a free press away (of course the left is after that too, aren’t they?  The ministry of truth).

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

But as written, the Constitution seems to be saying this is a right that is subject to regulation (not abolishment) by the government.

Thank God for the Constitution as it prevents mob rule and allows congress to take the emotion out of the issue.  Congress can pass restrictions to gun ownership, but it will have to understand how the SCOTUS might view such restrictions.  How would you identify an assault rife?  A scary looking gun that our military uses, but not the same?  Any semi-automatic rifle, shotgun or pistol?  All this and it will not solve the problem, just turn millions of Americans into outlaws overnight.

[arein0 995]

11 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Actually it is a plot for the left to disarm America.  Remember, just 8 years ago the Supreme Court, after pressure from the LGB coalition, agreed to allow this group to marry.  Now parents are fighting the government to be able to raise their own children and the school system is teaching gender identity.  We have to have legislation to prevent minors from being mutilated by the ideology of *gender affirming care*.

 

That would be your interpretation.

This is a tired argument.  Back in the day there was no internet, only printing presses and rudimentary means of communication.  We are even now debating how to handle these issues in the modern world, but have not taken the right to free speech or the right to a free press away (of course the left is after that too, aren’t they?  The ministry of truth).

Thank God for the Constitution as it prevents mob rule and allows congress to take the emotion out of the issue.  Congress can pass restrictions to gun ownership, but it will have to understand how the SCOTUS might view such restrictions.  How would you identify an assault rife?  A scary looking gun that our military uses, but not the same?  Any semi-automatic rifle, shotgun or pistol?  All this and it will not solve the problem, just turn millions of Americans into outlaws overnight.

How would you solve the mass shooting issues in the US?

[I_M4_AU 8,119]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

It's because 1) we don't know what any person might do under the right set of pressures, circumstances and emotional state and 2) if we let the so-called "good people" have access to them, then the evil people we don't yet know are evil get easier access to them too.

The United States has been dealing with this issue because of our Constitution for years.  Foreign governments have taken advantage of our generosity and we have adapted, yet upheld our Constitution.  Why should this be different?

A person that has no intention of obeying any laws they don’t agree with will disregard any restriction that may be passed.  Therefore, potentially, people that could be evil will still have access to these type of weapons.

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

So we restrict access to certain classes of weapons and arms for EVERYONE.

How does this work when there are millions of AR-15s in the possession of the public?

 

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Why is it such a stretch to say that certain classes of firearms shouldn't be so easy to obtain for most people?

Because 99.9% of the people that owns these weapons don’t go around killing people indiscriminately.  It really is that simple.  Find another way.

[TitanTiger 20,563]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Actually it is a plot for the left to disarm America.  Remember, just 8 years ago the Supreme Court, after pressure from the LGB coalition, agreed to allow this group to marry.  Now parents are fighting the government to be able to raise their own children and the school system is teaching gender identity.  We have to have legislation to prevent minors from being mutilated by the ideology of *gender affirming care*.

The Founding Fathers were squishes.  Noted.

 

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

That would be your interpretation.

It's the plain text of the amendment.

 

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

This is a tired argument.  Back in the day there was no internet, only printing presses and rudimentary means of communication.  We are even now debating how to handle these issues in the modern world, but have not taken the right to free speech or the right to a free press away (of course the left is after that too, aren’t they?  The ministry of truth).

As I said before, no constitutional right is absolute.  There are limits to freedom of speech for instance.  You cannot yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater, or knowingly tell defamatory lies publicly about another person.  You are subject to criminal and civil penalties if you do so.  This right also has limits.  You understand this already - it's why even if you had enough money to purchase one, you aren't allowed to have a fully operational Abrams tank or an F-16 fighter armed with cruise missiles even though both qualify as "arms."  You can neither keep nor bear them as a private citizen.  Why wouldn't certain types of guns also be subject to regulation and restriction.

 

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Thank God for the Constitution as it prevents mob rule and allows congress to take the emotion out of the issue.  Congress can pass restrictions to gun ownership, but it will have to understand how the SCOTUS might view such restrictions.  How would you identify an assault rife?  A scary looking gun that our military uses, but not the same?  Any semi-automatic rifle, shotgun or pistol?  All this and it will not solve the problem, just turn millions of Americans into outlaws overnight.

I may not be the world's foremost expert, but you aren't talking to some n00b that doesn't understand most nuances between types of firearms and would advocate for restricting something based on "looking scary," so talk to me like a normal person trying to have an adult conversation.

And I don't think it's some esoteric, undefinable thing.  The term "assault" doesn't even have to be in there.  We could simply designate certain regulations for firearms the average civilian can obtain based on things like fire rate, projectile velocity, ammunition used, the damage such ammo can inflict, and other capabilities.  Such weapons, depending on where they fall on some of these metrics could either be off limits (like most fully automatic rifles) or a lot higher bar for ownership - more extensive background checks, longer waiting periods, secure storage requirements, mental health evals, liability if this weapon is used in a crime because you failed to properly secure it, and so on. 

[tomcat 571]

1 hour ago, AU9377 said:

But you don't need this gun.....

Indeed…My poorly made point was without some yahoo intent upon inflicting evil with a gun, there would be significantly less need to have a gun for protection.

[I_M4_AU 8,119]

4 hours ago, Leftfield said:

This is stunning to me.

I’m glad it is.  I know, like most reasonable people, if you give up a right it is very seldom you get that right back.  They should be cherished.  Why is it that people, like yourself, want to restrict and govern other people's lives?  If I’m not mistaken you were a proponent of mandatory vaccination.  You don’t care for other people’s rights, just judge the world from your view.

We had a *assault weapons* ban from 1994 to 2004 and, unbelievably, it was voted to be rescinded by congress.  You want it back again.  Since most *gun violence* is perpetrated by the hand gun, will that be next?  This his how you libs work.

By the way how is you neighbor that has declared they were non binary (or whatever)?

[TitanTiger 20,563]

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

The United States has been dealing with this issue because of our Constitution for years.  Foreign governments have taken advantage of our generosity and we have adapted, yet upheld our Constitution.  Why should this be different?

A person that has no intention of obeying any laws they don’t agree with will disregard any restriction that may be passed.  Therefore, potentially, people that could be evil will still have access to these type of weapons.

You're dodging the point.  We already restrict access to certain kinds of weapons.  What makes every kind of gun such a magical unicorn that it can't be regulated in similar ways?

 

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

How does this work when there are millions of AR-15s in the possession of the public?

I suppose it's like any other thing in the known universe that used to be legal but now isn't.  If you pass laws regulating it or if it's outlawed for most people who can't meet the requirements of ownership, you give a defined grace period to turn the weapons in.  Given the value of some of these, I think a buyback program would be smart.  They could also be donated to your local National Guard base or police department for a tax credit.  You give ample time for people to make arrangements to either get qualified if they can or sell the weapon back.  After that date expires, anyone still in possession of the weapons are subject to criminal penalties and confiscation.

Let's say your house was heated by propane and you have one of those metal tanks near the house that had to be filled by the propane company.  And then at some point, they discover a design flaw in certain kinds of old tanks that creates a very dangerous condition and could result in fire and an explosion if not replaced.  The company that made that tank no longer exists so it's on whoever owes the tank (you or the propane company) to get it replaced.  What has to happen?  Notice is given, you have a period of time to get it replaced, and after that date, it's illegal for a propane company to refill it and illegal for you to own it.  If it's not replaced, you're subject to fines and possible criminal charges.  If something happens and an explosion hurts or kills someone, you're liable for damages as well.

This isn't some impossible higher math to work out.
 

4 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Because 99.9% of the people that owns these weapons don’t go around killing people indiscriminately.  It really is that simple.  Find another way.

99.9% of people could own a lot of dangerous weaponry and not go around killing people indiscriminately.  But we still deem certain kinds of weapons, with the ability to kill a lot of people really quickly to be too dangerous and lethal for just anyone to own.  We either make it very restrictive in terms of who can or we don't allow them to altogether.

[AU9377 5,240]

50 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Actually it is a plot for the left to disarm America.  Remember, just 8 years ago the Supreme Court, after pressure from the LGB coalition, agreed to allow this group to marry.  Now parents are fighting the government to be able to raise their own children and the school system is teaching gender identity.  We have to have legislation to prevent minors from being mutilated by the ideology of *gender affirming care*.

 

That would be your interpretation.

This is a tired argument.  Back in the day there was no internet, only printing presses and rudimentary means of communication.  We are even now debating how to handle these issues in the modern world, but have not taken the right to free speech or the right to a free press away (of course the left is after that too, aren’t they?  The ministry of truth).

Thank God for the Constitution as it prevents mob rule and allows congress to take the emotion out of the issue.  Congress can pass restrictions to gun ownership, but it will have to understand how the SCOTUS might view such restrictions.  How would you identify an assault rife?  A scary looking gun that our military uses, but not the same?  Any semi-automatic rifle, shotgun or pistol?  All this and it will not solve the problem, just turn millions of Americans into outlaws overnight.

The constitution didn't prevent an assault weapons ban before and it won't prevent it in the future. A plot to disarm America?  That is just silly ... really preposterous.  Was America disarmed in 1996?

This has nothing to do with trannies.  For crying out loud, why does the far right want to throw that into every discussion?  I know why.  Fox News, Tucker Carlson and the gang.

Again, what benefit is society gaining vs. what danger they pose.  People are no less free in the U.K, Canada, Australia, Japan etc, but they are safer.

Edited March 30, 2023 by AU9377

[AU9377 5,240]

1 hour ago, wdefromtx said:

Is the main reason many oppose banning the AR-15 because of fear of "slippery slope?" 

Other than having something that like for a ranch or playing commando on the weekends what else would you need one for? I am pro gun........but don't have an AR and don't really get all the fuss for wanting one. 

 

It is pure politics.

[I_M4_AU 8,119]

10 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And I don't think it's some esoteric, undefinable thing.  The term "assault" doesn't even have to be in there.  We could simply designate certain regulations for firearms the average civilian can obtain based on things like fire rate, projectile velocity, ammunition used, the damage such ammo can inflict, and other capabilities.  Such weapons, depending on where they fall on some of these metrics could either be off limits (like most fully automatic rifles) or a lot higher bar for ownership - more extensive background checks, longer waiting periods, secure storage requirements, mental health evals, liability if this weapon is used in a crime because you failed to properly secure it, and so on. 

When you take assault away from the description you end up banning all semiautomatic rifles, even the ones used for hunting.  Most states will not allow an AR-15 to be used in hunting as the ammo is not damaging enough and maybe hurtful to wildlife which may suffer because of that.

I’m not an expert on weaponry, but I know enough to know the people that will be putting restrictions on the general public know less than the average gun owner.

Longer waiting periods would not have helped with this latest shooting.  She bought 7 guns over a period of time.  Waiting periods help takes the emotions out of the purchase which is not a bad thing, but guns are accessible in the black market.  Securing that market would be a better way of restricting accessibility.

Mental health evals are only good until the person leaves the doctors office.  It could be used as a filter for those that believe they maybe unstable and/or show if these people are not aware of some underlining psychological issue not known.  This one is dicey as it is a restriction to ownership and I’m not sure how it gets around *shall not be infringed*.

It seems like *Red Flag Laws* would be something to look at as it allows the public to be involved as long as it not abused.

The debate is congress will be interesting, but a ban on any weapon now in use, to me, would be a non starter.

[Son of A Tiger 586]

6 minutes ago, AU9377 said:

  People are no less free in the U.K, Canada, Australia, Japan etc, but they are safer.

They are safer for more reasons than gun control.

[icanthearyou 4,465]

56 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Thank God for the Constitution as it prevents mob rule

Yeah, we are better off having this decision made by guys who lived 200+ years ago and, only knew a gun as a musket.  Very intelligent.

[AU9377 5,240]

2 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

When you take assault away from the description you end up banning all semiautomatic rifles, even the ones used for hunting.  Most states will not allow an AR-15 to be used in hunting as the ammo is not damaging enough and maybe hurtful to wildlife which may suffer because of that.

I’m not an expert on weaponry, but I know enough to know the people that will be putting restrictions on the general public know less than the average gun owner.

Longer waiting periods would not have helped with this latest shooting.  She bought 7 guns over a period of time.  Waiting periods help takes the emotions out of the purchase which is not a bad thing, but guns are accessible in the black market.  Securing that market would be a better way of restricting accessibility.

Mental health evals are only good until the person leaves the doctors office.  It could be used as a filter for those that believe they maybe unstable and/or show if these people are not aware of some underlining psychological issue not known.  This one is dicey as it is a restriction to ownership and I’m not sure how it gets around *shall not be infringed*.

It seems like *Red Flag Laws* would be something to look at as it allows the public to be involved as long as it not abused.

The debate is congress will be interesting, but a ban on any weapon now in use, to me, would be a non starter.

https://www.cbs.com/shows/video/Op_to726Zr2zIEZ3fWVLoZ5vLZ_xJK8o/

The fact is that the AR-15 causes much more fatal damage than average ammunition.

[AU9377 5,240]

4 minutes ago, Son of A Tiger said:

They are safer for more reasons than gun control.

I agree.  Their lifespan is surpassing the U.S. lifespan and their quality of life is now consistently seen as superior.  I think that is a sad set of affairs, resulting in part from the unyielding stubbornness of some Americans and our fractured political system.