View attachment ​

 

How many shots do those weapons hold? Because with the possible exception of the Ruger I don't see anything that appears to old ten shots. And are they all the same caliber? Again the Ruger looks like a .22 to me.

 

Florida man charged with hate crime says he ‘only shot a n*gger’

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/07/31/florida-man-charged-with-hate-crime-says-he-only-shot-a-ngger/

 

He probably read The Bell Curve too many times.

 

The L1A1 has a magazine that holds 20 rounds of 7.62x51mm NATO

 

texas deer hunter

 

LOL! .50 cal?

 

The Ruger Mini-14 is available from the factory with either a 5 round magazine legal for hunting or with 20 or 30 round magazines and is chambered in .223 (5.56mm.) The L1A1 (FN-FAL) comes standard with 20 round magazines but is available with either five or ten round magazines depending upon legality and purpose and is chambered in .308 winchester (7.62x51mm NATO.) But again, magzine capacity realy doesnt play into the issue very much. High magazine capacity was designed around the idea of suppressive fire, which is the practice of laying down a large volume of relitively unaimed fire in an effort to force an enemy to keep their (plural) heads down. Higher magazine capacity simply allows the individual rifleman to sustain suppressive fire longer between reloads.

Aimed fire designed to actualy hit a target doesnt depend upon magazine capacity, and when the magazine is empty accomplishing the reload is relatively quick. resticting magazine capacity doesnt effectively limit the number of rounds a shooter can place on target in any given period of time. It simply means that the very brief pause between magazines will happen slightly more frequently. In addition, limiting magazine capacity actualy tends to cause another phenominon to become more pronounced. With high magazine capacity, shooters tend to use a technique known as "spray and pray" where shots tend to be very random and not terribly accurate. Hence, when police departments adopted high capacity handguns the avaerage number of shots fired by police officers in shootings more than doubled while the average number of hits dropped. Limiting magzine capacity tends to make the shooter more deliberate and careful about placing shots accurately and might actualy serve the opposite of the desired effect that a magazine capcity limit would be designed to prevent.

All in all, it realy wouldnt make a serious difference in the results of a person with a firearm walking into a crowded place and opening fire. There will be a lot of people hurt and some of them might even die.

There is still a very real need to create a system that keeps mentaly ill people from obtaining firearms and ammunition. Period. We do it for criminals, why dont we do it for people who are mentaly ill? Why do we blindly allow people who are menatly disturbed to simply walk into a gun store, fill out a form and walk out with a rifle or shotgun and a pile of ammunition. Would you walk up to the guy on the street corner thats having a heated argument with a telephone pole and hand him a twelve gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot and say "have a nice day?" Thats in effect what we do, and banning guns isnt going to stop this sort of crap.

 

Well I'm just not going to go along with the idea that the number of rounds a gun can carry doesn't make any difference.

The reason we had the 1994 ban was the Stockton school yard shooting. He had two 75 round clips. And the Colorado shooter had 100.

And let's not get carried with the bullshit. Not me or anyone else I know of is talking about banning guns. But as Supreme court justice Scalia recently pointed out under the current definition of keep and bear arms shoulder mounted rocket launchers that can bring down passenger planes are legal.

Also don't get me wrong I've very interested in better mental health care and better diagnosis. But I know longer believe in unrestricted access to assault weapons and high capacity clips.

And for one reason I bet I know a couple dozen guys personally who have them and haven't seen a one of them need a gun like that yet.

 

But a gun is by far the weapon of choice. A knife is too personal and requires that you be be in close proximity to your victim. Too intimate. A hammer is also a little too intimate, you can try throwing, but unless it is Thor's hammer, it's a one shot, hit or miss kind of thing.

A gun on the other hand, is quite impersonal, allowing the artist to start way back from his canvas, almost like Pollack, and spray his canvas with schrapnel and blood... and when he runs out of bullets, he just grabs another... lather, rinse, repeat!

The main problem of gun control is the NRA, they are fronting for the gun industry at the expense individual rights. It is the NRA that caused these things to happen, they work to get laws passed or repealed, and then the work to cut the funding to the organizations charged with enforcing the gun control laws as they are.

Ban the NRA, not guns.

 

In what reality? It was a dark theater and who would have known that he was coming in through the back? Your comment assumes that every concealed carry owner is a marksman with gobs of military sharpshooter training...

In a word, naive.

 

Can we assume you have training and a degree in the black magic arts of speculation?

 

No I thought the knife analogy was the best argument yet for gun control. In the two cases mentioned we're talking a little over a dozen victims over the space of more than 100 years.

We average about 30,000 deaths per year.

Yeah I'll take my chances with a guy with just a knife over someone with an assault rifle with 100 shot magazine anytime.

 

You can bury people alive... I think we need to ban dirt!

 

​

 

Having been a shooter since the age of seven I can testify that I can change magazines fast enough that you wouldnt realy care if they held ten shots or one hundred. The end result would be the same. And lets not forget that the stockton shooter fired over two hundred rounds and managed to actualy hit very few people by compairison. Bullets that dont hit anyone are for all intents and purposes just a loud noise. Nobody has ever been killed by a loud noise. Skill with a firearm plays a huge roll in the end results, and a person with decent skills can make even low capacity magazines very, very effective. As for unrestricted access to assault weapons, I dont believe in unrestricted access to any weapon, be it an assault rifle or a baseball bat. As it is now coming out in the press, the theater shooters psychiatrist had begun the process of reporting him to school authorities when he dropped out of school and so the warning to the school simply didnt go anywhere. Psychiatrists need to be required to report potentialy dangerous patients to the state, so that the state can red flag them in an effort to prevent them from obtaining access to firearms of any kind.

There have been a number of high profile shootings over the last couple of decades in which it has come out later that the parents, coworkers, counselors, psychiatrists, teachers, friends and others have been deeply concerned regarding the mental stability of the individual but had absolutly no way to raise a warnig to anyone in a position to do anything about it. In seattle just a couple of weeks befor the Colorado shooting we had a shooting at a cafe where a regular customer who was disgruntled at being barred from the cafe for being disruptive walked in and shot and killed four people, wounded a couple and then shot and killed a fifth person outside the cafe and took her car. He eventualy shot and killed himself when police approached him. His father had been struggling for many months with his son to try to get him mental health care but was powerless to do anything about his sons problems. Had a system been in place to report the issue to authorities they would have been able to red flag this man and prevent him from buying the handgun that he used to kill these people and himself.

Why is it so hard for people to simply identify that the problem isnt with guns, its with the ability of mentaly disturbed people to obtain them? It is absolutly absurd that someone who is mentaly ill can simply walk into a gun store and buy a firearm, I dont care if its a single shot .22 or a ten thousand shot howitzer with laser sights and an espresso maker. You wouldnt walk into a mental health facility and start handing out guns and ammunition. Parents, teachers, counselors and psychiatrists need to have a mechanism that allows them to report these problems to the authorities so that things like this can be prevented. Additionaly, we need a system in place that prevents them from simply buying these weapons from private parties, and the class three system does exactly that. All purchases need to go through a registered dealer who runs all the required background checks on both the buyer and the seller which prevents people who shouldnt have these weapons from getting them.

The only reason anyone opposes this is because their personal goal is to inflict their beliefs on others rather than create a system that actualy might help someone get the care they need rather than just making yet another restriction.

 

Tim I've spent a day or two shooting guns myself and I'm doubting you can shoot a clip and reload another before I can slap it out of your hand because you still got to lock and load between changes.

Like I said one little old lady managed to slap the second clip our of the Phoenix killer's hand.

And what kind of skill does it take to hit people in crowded places. Flock shooting works just fine in those instances. All they have to do is just keep pulling that trigger. And don't forge the Aurora killer was hitting people in the theater next door.

These guys aren't shooters or hunters. They are video game trained. And they are shooting fish in barrel. Its actually harder to miss in that situation than it is to hit with ever bullet.

Finally, if I know one thing its that as long as there's lead in the air there's always a chance of hitting something. And 100 round magazines give you a lot more chances.

Ok I lied. The Stockton shooter was shooting a lot more distance at moving targets than your average mass killer and he wasn't even really aiming. But you're talking a playground full of elementary kids running for their lives and the teachers trying to save them.

Fuck man I'll tell you straight up. Just because the kill rate was low that's the scene that told me we were fucking gun nuts. I still can't bear even my on imagination of what those kids when through with someone shooting them for sport.

I agree. Specifically what is your solution. How should we handle this? What is the process? Who is in charge of the list?

But remember right now the NRA is fighting to keep it legal for people on a terrorist watch list to buy guns. There's people right here defending that.

Again I'm all for it. But could you give my your definition of mental illness? I mean who determines that and how? How do you know if this person who has been reported as a mental illness threat isn't the innocent husband of some really pissed off bitchy wife?

By the way what's the infrastructure for reporting this? Suppose someone tells his psychiatrist you know I've been wondering sometimes if I shouldn't commit a mass killing in some crowded place?

Ok so that's a definite warning that should trigger your no guns for nuts policy. What's to keep him from walking out of that psychiatrist's walking into the local gun store, buying two guns with 50 shot clips and 100 rounds of ammo and just start massacring people on his way home?

And when you figure those odds also try to figure the odds of a Marine Corp Sniper with a .50 caliber in the theater if we had more liberal gun laws instead of restrictions. Because when I do the math just by the number of Marine Snipers I've encountered on the internet since this shooting it comes out to more than 100% because apparently there are more Marine Corp snipers on the internet than there are actual Marines.

No, no now I'm really willing to honestly discuss this with you but you've also got to look at all sides of it.

Because what you're actually saying is instead of restricting any access to guns make a much more stringent legally required system for some human beings to make a subjective judgment about who is and isn't a threat on any given day.

Have you ever lost your temper and looked crazy for a minute or two?

Ever had someone in authority over you that just really wanted to fuck you Over?

Ever seen One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest?

No no don't restrict guns. Expand government control over individuals because you believe in Freedom?

 

It was pure levity. But the more I think about it.............it fits.

 

This is a breaking story but it looks like here we go again.

Report: At least four killed in shooting at Sikh temple in Wisconsin

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/...lled-in-shooting-at-sikh-temple-in-wisconsin/