O/T feel sick inside - CT Elementary shooting

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by kmac32

Still doesn't justify assault guns. If you want to see how good of a shot someone really is, try a muzzleloader.

Ok so lets say someone goes and shoots up a school with a muzzleloader or a .22, should we then ban them??? Or like I mentioned already, say the guy drove his car through a group of kids and killed 15. Should cars be banned to a limit then? I'm sure more people are killed by stupid people driving a year then stupid people with guns.

[oldjudge]

Brock--you are raising an argument that has nothing to do with this. The question is if banning assault weapons would save lives and, to that question, I think the answer is yes.

[oldjudge]

"It is a pretty simple reasoning."

Actually, it's simple minded reasoning. What would the killer have done today? Run over his mother with a car. Then go to the school, wait for the kids to get out, and then try to run them over? My sense is that a lot of lives could have been saved if his weapon was a car instead of several guns.

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

"It is a pretty simple reasoning."

Actually, it's simple minded reasoning. What would the killer have done today? Run over his mother with a car. Then go to the school, wait for the kids to get out, and then try to run them over? My sense is that a lot of lives could have been saved if his weapon was a car instead of several guns.

He could have stabbed them, created a bomb, etc. I'm sure a sicko could come up with other ways.

[Texxxx]

Most of the people here that are against ARs don't seem to be against other forms of guns. Why? In the US, assault rifles are not allowed to be fully automatic and the average rate of fire for a AR is 40-60 rpm. Anyone with some experience can take a semi automatic hand gun and shoot that many rounds off in a minute. Also most of the ARs shoot a NATO .223 with is very slightly larger than a .22. Where lots of hand guns shoot much larger shells and do much more damage. Please help me understand why you think ARs are so bad! Please give reasons and not emotions.

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by Texxxx

Most of the people here that are against ARs don't seem to be against other forms of guns. Why? In the US, assault rifles are not allowed to be fully automatic and the average rate of fire for a AR is 40-60 rpm. Anyone with some experience can take a semi automatic hand gun and shoot that many rounds off in a minute. Also most of the ARs shoot a NATO .223 with is very slightly larger than a .22. Where lots of hand guns shoot much larger shells and do much more damage. Please help me understand why you think ARs are so bad! Please give reasons and not emotions.

Exactly.

[vintagetoppsguy]

Originally Posted by Texxxx

Anyone with some experience can take a semi automatic hand gun and shoot that many rounds off in a minute. Also most of the ARs shoot a NATO .223 with is very slightly larger than a .22. Where lots of hand guns shoot much larger shells and do much more damage.

Exactly! That's what I said in the Aurora thread and again earlier in this thread. People who want to continue to bash ARs ignore that fact. I love my 9mm. I own 7 guns and, by far, that is my favorite. If I found myself a victim of a situation as such in Aurora, I would rather have my 9mm over an AR any day.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by vintagetoppsguy

Exactly! That's what I said in the Aurora thread and again earlier in this thread. People who want to continue to bash ARs ignore that fact. I love my 9mm. I own 7 guns and, by far, that is my favorite. If I found myself a victim of a situation as such in Aurora, I would rather have my 9mm over an AR any day.

David, you and I get along, so please don't take this the wrong way.

The last thing I would want in a situation like Aurora, is a guy I don't know, with a 9mm, or any other type of gun, trying to protect me 'just in case' a mass murderer happens to show up. Again, to me the costs outweigh the benefits.

[Runscott]

Originally Posted by Texxxx

Most of the people here that are against ARs don't seem to be against other forms of guns. Why? In the US, assault rifles are not allowed to be fully automatic and the average rate of fire for a AR is 40-60 rpm. Anyone with some experience can take a semi automatic hand gun and shoot that many rounds off in a minute. Also most of the ARs shoot a NATO .223 with is very slightly larger than a .22. Where lots of hand guns shoot much larger shells and do much more damage. Please help me understand why you think ARs are so bad! Please give reasons and not emotions.

I'm against any kind of gun that's designed for war. 40-60 rpm isn't something you need for deer-hunting or any other kind of sport hunting. And unless you are defending yourself from a hoard of invaders, you don't need 40-60 rpm for self-defense.

To me it's a cost/benefit thing - the costs to society outweigh the benefits to the individual - drastically.

[Texxxx]

Originally Posted by Runscott

you don't need 40-60 rpm for self-defense.

When two guys break into my house, I dont want a gun that takes 10 seconds between shots. I want to be able to pull off 3-4 rounds as fast as possible before they can get to me. I'm not planning to shoot all 40-60 rounds but I want the first ones fast and to do that you need a gun with a high rate of fire.

[Vintageismygame]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

"It is a pretty simple reasoning."

Actually, it's simple minded reasoning. What would the killer have done today? Run over his mother with a car. Then go to the school, wait for the kids to get out, and then try to run them over? My sense is that a lot of lives could have been saved if his weapon was a car instead of several guns.

He could have hacked her up with a $20 hatchet from Walmart and then spent another $50 or so and fire bombed the school.

[Kenny Cole]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

Ok so lets say someone goes and shoots up a school with a muzzleloader or a .22, should we then ban them??? Or like I mentioned already, say the guy drove his car through a group of kids and killed 15. Should cars be banned to a limit then? I'm sure more people are killed by stupid people driving a year then stupid people with guns.

That may be the single stupidest post of the day, if not the year. Do you serioiusly think the shooter is going to kill 27 people with a muzzleloader? If so, you are an idiot. If not, your post is disingenious at best. If you are going to argue the merits of owning assault rifles, at least come up with an argument that isn't completely ridiculous.

[kmac32]

Originally Posted by yanks12025

Ok so lets say someone goes and shoots up a school with a muzzleloader or a .22, should we then ban them??? Or like I mentioned already, say the guy drove his car through a group of kids and killed 15. Should cars be banned to a limit then? I'm sure more people are killed by stupid people driving a year then stupid people with guns.

Cars serve a purpose in general. A single shot 22 or muzzleloader have limited firepower so you wouldn't have mass murder. As I said before I do not propose a ban on guns in general. I advocate a ban on assault weapons. They really serve no purpose in any society unless you are in a battle or a war. Don't think that senario exists in a school or movie theater where people have been killed by idiots using these weapons. Unless you are a soldier somewhere in the world, what's the purpose?