Mass Shootings in the US

What about 20 round magazines? If it was good enough in Vietnam?

Why would you need 30rds of 5.56? Unless your in LE, or military?
I do have several 20 round pmags. The Springfield also has 6 20 rounders as well.

To answer your question as honestly as possible.

A. 30 rounders are standard, trying to ban those would be suicide and get you nowhere. The drums and 60 round magazines are not as common, and a better thing to focus on.

B. I have several 30 round pmags, they hold my green tips. Very handy to have on the range. My 20 round pmags hold the more potent/rare ammo. MK318 SOST, MK262 etc. Color coded by rounds, so I know what the hell is what.

C. I live 7 minutes away from the new PMAG factory, that was driven out by Colorado. Banning the 30 round magazines would force them to leave, costing us lots of money. Wyoming is a haven for the firearms industry.

D. In case of ZPOC will be very useful to clear the legions of undead, and save my thumbs from having to reload as frequently. I have to keep them in Xbox shape and those 20 round mags to get tedious after a bit.

I would be more worried about the 7.62 Nato honestly. More like minded folks are acquiring weapons chambered in this because it is a more versatile round suited for many applications.
 
Eat Shit Pom Nancy!
How in hell did you know I was once a Plant Earth Moving God...worshipped by the whole of mankind.
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
Funny, but I hate that breed of dog. Are they illegal in the UK by chance?
I’m acquainted with two, one recently died of old age, belonged to a neighbour. Rufty, tufty hell of a guy type. The dog was a complete softy and got on very well with mine.
I was a bit wary when I first bumped into them 14 or so years ago.
Couldn’t have been nicer. Solid wee thing.

Now one of my techies has one, complete window licker and licker of anything which passes.

We also have those which are used by gangbangers ( scrotes) as a way of intimidating others. Those I would have shot and the dogs taken into care.
 
I’m acquainted with two, one recently died of old age, belonged to a neighbour. Rufty, tufty hell of a guy type. The dog was a complete softy and got on very well with mine.
I was a bit wary when I first bumped into them 14 or so years ago.
Couldn’t have been nicer. Solid wee thing.

Now one of my techies has one, complete window licker and licker of anything which passes.

We also have those which are used by gangbangers ( scrotes) as a way of intimidating others. Those I would have shot and the dogs taken into care.
We have more of the undesirables who have those dogs here. It can go both ways, but not something I am going to take a chance on with my own dogs and kids. They will also go after livestock which is an instant death sentence if the dogs are caught.

The only working dogs I really liked were some of the German Shepard's the handlers had. Not a fan of the Belgian Malinois.
 

skid2

LE
Book Reviewer
We have more of the undesirables who have those dogs here. It can go both ways, but not something I am going to take a chance on with my own dogs and kids. They will also go after livestock which is an instant death sentence if the dogs are caught.

The only working dogs I really liked were some of the German Shepard's the handlers had. Not a fan of the Belgian Malinois.
Not getting into a dogfight, I’m no fan of pit bulls, I believe the two examples I mentioned to be the exception to the rule.


But while having coffee a blind girl walked past with a beautiful long haired Alsatian.
‘Nice Jack Russell, kid’ I said as she passed. She stopped.
And said, ‘it better be a Belgian shepherd.
I assured her it was. And it dealt with the street furniture a hell of a lot better than I do. Lovely dog and I was assured a far better temperament than the German version.
 
I do have several 20 round pmags. The Springfield also has 6 20 rounders as well.

To answer your question as honestly as possible.

A. 30 rounders are standard, trying to ban those would be suicide and get you nowhere. The drums and 60 round magazines are not as common, and a better thing to focus on.

B. I have several 30 round pmags, they hold my green tips. Very handy to have on the range. My 20 round pmags hold the more potent/rare ammo. MK318 SOST, MK262 etc. Color coded by rounds, so I know what the hell is what.

C. I live 7 minutes away from the new PMAG factory, that was driven out by Colorado. Banning the 30 round magazines would force them to leave, costing us lots of money. Wyoming is a haven for the firearms industry.

D. In case of ZPOC will be very useful to clear the legions of undead, and save my thumbs from having to reload as frequently. I have to keep them in Xbox shape and those 20 round mags to get tedious after a bit.

I would be more worried about the 7.62 Nato honestly. More like minded folks are acquiring weapons chambered in this because it is a more versatile round suited for many applications.
Thanks for the response, but magazine size doesn’t infringe on your precious 2nd amendment.

So why not have 10- 20 mags as the limit?

Christ my usual AWPT was conducted in 5rds, multiple shoots.

Those 5 rounds were in a 30 round mag.
 
Thanks for the response, but magazine size doesn’t infringe on your precious 2nd amendment.

So why not have 10- 20 mags as the limit?

Christ my usual AWPT was conducted in 5rds, multiple shoots.

Those 5 rounds were in a 30 round mag.
I assume AWPT has to do with your weapons qual?

So ten 20 round magazines total for everything one owns? Not per weapon?
Hell it only takes a few years to garner an impressive # of magazines Himmler. My rule of thumb is 4 min for handgun and 7 per rifle with the usual number of spares and range mags.
 
I assume AWPT has to do with your weapons qual?

So ten 20 round magazines total for everything one owns? Not per weapon?
Hell it only takes a few years to garner an impressive # of magazines Himmler. My rule of thumb is 4 min for handgun and 7 per rifle with the usual number of spares and range mags.
That would be (or sounds like, from my rapidly-diminishing memories of the intricacies of range days - though I thought it was less rounds) the annual minimum standard test for the rifle. Pistol etc required different numbers of mags/rounds.

It wasn’t particularly difficult; though some people sure made it appear so.
 
He does have better odds really. I mean the biggest pains you have to worry about are Foxes, Badgers and dogs.
The last time I drew a weapon was not against a person, but a damn dog. I was walking mine and this nasty sucker shows up with hostile intent and it would have mauled my Mini Aussie. The 1911 was out in a heart beat as I was trying to back the **** out without having to shoot the damn thing. It's owner heard what was going on and grabbed and apologized profusely.

Pit bull - Wikipedia

I hate this breed of dog with a passion, half of the owners should not have them because they don't train them at all.
I live in Canada so there are bigger things around but it's not something I lose sleep over.
 
Who knows - There have been Mountain lion attacks 25 miles from where I sit right now. I have two camping trips in the next 6 weeks (in mountain lion country) and I live in a Urban metro area, where the last time i called 911, it took 30 minutes.

I get you are a hermit and dont go out/live in a utopia - some of us still have lives left to live and also dont want to let the 2 legged predators access to our families. Your post indicated knives are dangerous, but have practical uses, but guns can be banned as they dont have a practical use. You are clearly wrong again.


But it doesnt really matter, as you are only interested in a gun ban.
Oh don't know. On occasion I look out of the window. A few years ago I woke with a bear snuffling through the remains of the campfire. After nearly crapping myself (very quietly) i waited and it moved away. If it had gone south I'm sure a gun would have been useful but it hasn't prompted me to get one since.

And I get that you feel you need to be armed to protect your family. But in doing so I believe you are just perpetuating the problem.

And yes I believe a gun ban or at least some meaningful restrictions would be sensible, I accept that it's unlikely any time soon.
 
I’m bouncing between locations.
The Armalite and the M1A are derived from military designs, but the former is often built as a dedicated target rifle and the latter is even more commonly a target rifle. Are these designed for target shooting or for killing?

Pretty much all knives will kill as well. Guns are undoubtedly better at it, but using emotive phrases such as “designed to kill” is inaccurate, inflammatory and offers no role in furthering the debate.
Why so squeamish about guns being designed and intended to shoot and kill.
 
Why so squeamish about guns being designed and intended to shoot and kill.
Not squeamish, but it’s an incorrect statement that plays to the emotive. You might as well run around wailing. Here you are conflating shoot and kill, presuming that to shoot is to kill.
If you want to complain about firearms, it would make more sense to complain about the greater facility they bring to killing rather than imagining that the entire industry and user base are plotting to kill people. But then you’d also have to consider why there are people who think that going out and shooting lots of people is a good idea.
 
From your link:
"If you encounter a mountain lion in the wild, department spokeswoman Robin Kepple recommended trying to startle the animal by yelling at it or throwing things at it so it knows you are not prey".



Throwing things at it? 30-06 maybe?

The heavier and faster the better. Bikes don’t seem to work.
 
All the discussion about magazine size, or type of small arms, or microstamping or background check expansion, not once have i heard anyone in the mainstream ask, or indeed anyone answer some difficult questions.

1. US has had private firearms in private owners since inception. Why are school shootings a 1999 onwards occurrence. (I say 1999 as Colombine marks the start of the drum beat of these events)?

2. Regulation didn't start in any tangible form until 1934, and it took a further 65 years for people to to decide to go brass up schools, so it follows that the link between regulation and school shootings isnt directly proportional, why would regulation short of total confiscation have any impact?

3. If you can explain what changed post 1999 that wasn't present in the preceding, lets say 200 years, then we might have a clue to the root cause and therefore viable remedies. Those remedies would treat the cause, and actually have an effect, or determine that you cant fix crazy?

4. Gun control has nothing at all to do with mass shooter events, because not one of the proposed regulatory changes would materially alter any of the last 20 years of mass shooters. Why does magazine size for example, consume so much discussion time?

5. Given that 42% of the population are estimated to own or have access to guns, and the probability of mass shooter events is statistically so low, why should the millions of people who dont do anything at all wrong with their firearms be penalized in a way that doesnt impact the very people who committed the crimes in the first place?

I have 2 kids at school in US, both at a young age so I do care about this directly. Id much rather understand the root causes first then take definitive action once it is clear that action will have the effect, and not push another issue/problem into a higher precedence.

For example, banning all guns, if that were even practical, would require confiscation by LE, which would result in civil war potentially. If you look at it through the lens of the limited federal attempts to disarm fringe groups (Ruby Ridge, Bundy's etc) they generally escalate. Wholesale confiscation might stop the 60 deaths a year from mass shooter events, but create deaths from direct engagement between LE and civilians across the nation into the 100's or 1000's and push states like Texas and others to secede, accelerating the break up of the US. The outcome for my kids being much worse than the problem it was intended to address.

For the time i have spent looking at this, my working belief is that children lack the coping skills to deal with conflict and disappointment, largely due to a parenting model that seeks to protect them from every eventuality. With a basic lack of robust coping skills they grow into young adults within a society that confuses and pulls in multiple directions simultaneously, and all sorts of lifestyle choices are presented, absent of the consequences, or the very idea that consequences should even be part of the thought process. Then when that confusion and stimulus backs up it has no vent, and they have no methodology to deal with it. Escapism through violence for some becomes the uncontrollable vent, plays out with school shootings, as thats the canvas that they want to "show" their perception of the world.

Feeling on the fringes makes the young mind want to compensate, and show people their worth or define themselves as worthy, if that surfaces in violent impulses previous generations would go punch the big kid/fat kid/any kid and the two of them would figure it out in relatively low consequence environment. Now, go to school and draw a picture of a gun on paper at 5 and you will find yourself being drugged or in special school.

So, you can either explore and think into that space, or argue incessantly that a 10 round magazine fixes the whole thing, and move on to N Korea or NAFTA. One requires considered thought and a min IQ, the other can be done in a twitter post and requires nothing greater than an average IQ of 80.

Meantime, as many posters have raised, the whole thing just carries on and repeats.
 
All the discussion about magazine size, or type of small arms, or microstamping or background check expansion, not once have i heard anyone in the mainstream ask, or indeed anyone answer some difficult questions.

1. US has had private firearms in private owners since inception. Why are school shootings a 1999 onwards occurrence. (I say 1999 as Colombine marks the start of the drum beat of these events)?

2. Regulation didn't start in any tangible form until 1934, and it took a further 65 years for people to to decide to go brass up schools, so it follows that the link between regulation and school shootings isnt directly proportional, why would regulation short of total confiscation have any impact?

3. If you can explain what changed post 1999 that wasn't present in the preceding, lets say 200 years, then we might have a clue to the root cause and therefore viable remedies. Those remedies would treat the cause, and actually have an effect, or determine that you cant fix crazy?

4. Gun control has nothing at all to do with mass shooter events, because not one of the proposed regulatory changes would materially alter any of the last 20 years of mass shooters. Why does magazine size for example, consume so much discussion time?

5. Given that 42% of the population are estimated to own or have access to guns, and the probability of mass shooter events is statistically so low, why should the millions of people who dont do anything at all wrong with their firearms be penalized in a way that doesnt impact the very people who committed the crimes in the first place?

I have 2 kids at school in US, both at a young age so I do care about this directly. Id much rather understand the root causes first then take definitive action once it is clear that action will have the effect, and not push another issue/problem into a higher precedence.

For example, banning all guns, if that were even practical, would require confiscation by LE, which would result in civil war potentially. If you look at it through the lens of the limited federal attempts to disarm fringe groups (Ruby Ridge, Bundy's etc) they generally escalate. Wholesale confiscation might stop the 60 deaths a year from mass shooter events, but create deaths from direct engagement between LE and civilians across the nation into the 100's or 1000's and push states like Texas and others to secede, accelerating the break up of the US. The outcome for my kids being much worse than the problem it was intended to address.

For the time i have spent looking at this, my working belief is that children lack the coping skills to deal with conflict and disappointment, largely due to a parenting model that seeks to protect them from every eventuality. With a basic lack of robust coping skills they grow into young adults within a society that confuses and pulls in multiple directions simultaneously, and all sorts of lifestyle choices are presented, absent of the consequences, or the very idea that consequences should even be part of the thought process. Then when that confusion and stimulus backs up it has no vent, and they have no methodology to deal with it. Escapism through violence for some becomes the uncontrollable vent, plays out with school shootings, as thats the canvas that they want to "show" their perception of the world.

Feeling on the fringes makes the young mind want to compensate, and show people their worth or define themselves as worthy, if that surfaces in violent impulses previous generations would go punch the big kid/fat kid/any kid and the two of them would figure it out in relatively low consequence environment. Now, go to school and draw a picture of a gun on paper at 5 and you will find yourself being drugged or in special school.

So, you can either explore and think into that space, or argue incessantly that a 10 round magazine fixes the whole thing, and move on to N Korea or NAFTA. One requires considered thought and a min IQ, the other can be done in a twitter post and requires nothing greater than an average IQ of 80.

Meantime, as many posters have raised, the whole thing just carries on and repeats.
Try playing Xbox live, with your nerd mates who are all In their 30’s. Then listen to an 11 year old play some pretty realistic video games that they have no business with. As a 35 year old I have the concept of death down, these kids don’t. The parents let them play these games for hours on end and it does warp their perceptions after a few years.

I wish hunter safety/firearms education was mandatory for all school kids. The earlier you start with gun safety, the less curious kids become. That might prevent some accidental deaths.
 
I wish hunter safety/firearms education was mandatory for all school kids. The earlier you start with gun safety, the less curious kids become. That might would prevent some shed loads of accidental deaths.
AL1 Free of charge.:-D
Jonesy, you're talking common sense.
It'll never work.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
Hmm using the FBI Homicide data tables there were only 11,004 Gun Homicides in 2016 out of a population of 322,762,018

Thats 0.0034093230883195185% of the population murdered by Guns

2014- 8,312
2016- 11,004
Expanded Homicide Data Table 4

According to the FBI Murder is up in 2017 1.5% (Preliminary jan to june 2017) Of course that include ALL methods of Homicide not just guns
Table 3
For an Arrse Mod, @Guns has been quite busy then which makes a change!
 

Similar threads

Top