Mass Shootings in the US

Hate to break it to you folks, but American conservatives don't care if a bunch of foreigners shoot themselves up. Not our business not our issue.

American Liberals don't care because if the issue does not help advance their cause here, no fecks are given. Let's be honest they don't care as much about you foreign devils as you think they do.
I don't think we were under any illusions about that.
 
Just how often does that actually happen? Actual figures or percentages of armed attacks.
I used to have a news feed of defensive firearms use in the US & it was sometimes a score or more a day & those are just the ones picked up by the media.
Many never make the news as the threat goes away as soon as it realises the potential victim isn't a pushover.
 
Just how often does that actually happen? Actual figures or percentages of armed attacks.

Civilians with Guns Intervening in Active Shooter Incidents -- the 2016 and 2017 Data

Hard to find stats, but If you google search it you will find many stories where armed civs intervene and stop mass shooters.

I would prefer my Glock or 1911 over your prayers any day.

Most of these mass shooters prefer their targets to be defenseless. The ability to fight back and engage them throws them on the defense. Besides many civs here practice their drills seriously.
 
Crimea now belongs to the Russians so nowt to do with EU. It's just that "conventional wisdom" dictates that such shootings can only happen where firearms laws are lax. Definitely not so in that neck of the woods, which could be one reason why American liberals are not interested as that event hardly supports their theories.
As for the EU it was briefly reported on German TV but only the bare facts and without further comment. Almost a a case of being a non event, the same thing happening anywhere in the States would of course be big news, because armed Americans are bad.
I'm standing by to be corrected, but as I understand it, it's not that there are lax laws in Russia, it's the sometimes arbitrary enforcement of them and the culture.

On lazy days with nothing to do but, scrolling through the internet you can see a number of vids on youtube where Russian road rage incidents can involve pulling out a gun.
 
Hard to find stats, but If you google search it you will find many stories where armed civs intervene and stop mass shooters.
Until my browser crashed a few months ago I had a US gun forum as one of my favourites. The site regularly listed shootings involving good versus bad guys, in which the good guys almost invariably came first. Haven't been able to fine that website since.
 
Personally this where I would just practice civil disobedience and extend the middle finger to the law. The high magazine ban is stupid, and unenforceable
OK, I am not a hunter/weapon owner/clay pigeon shooter (even). The discussion over ammunition choice a few pages back means nothing to me (other than the NATO 7.62 & 5.56).
I note, however, that you were able to kill a goat/deer/antelope with one round over some distance. My question, therefore, is why do Americans resist limiting the capacity of magazines? If a kill can be achieved with one round, why object to limiting a magazine to ten rounds?

I am not fishing for a row, just genuinely trying to understand.
 
OK, I am not a hunter/weapon owner/clay pigeon shooter (even). The discussion over ammunition choice a few pages back means nothing to me (other than the NATO 7.62 & 5.56).
I note, however, that you were able to kill a goat/deer/antelope with one round over some distance. My question, therefore, is why do Americans resist limiting the capacity of magazines? If a kill can be achieved with one round, why object to limiting a magazine to ten rounds?

I am not fishing for a row, just genuinely trying to understand.
You have just answered your own question, why insist on limiting a magazine capacity when it only takes one round to kill?

Limiting the number of guns, the type of guns nor the number of rounds has NEVER had any effect on the use of firearms in criminal acts. all it does is allows politicians to "claim" that they have done something in sound bites.
 
OK, I am not a hunter/weapon owner/clay pigeon shooter (even). The discussion over ammunition choice a few pages back means nothing to me (other than the NATO 7.62 & 5.56).
I note, however, that you were able to kill a goat/deer/antelope with one round over some distance. My question, therefore, is why do Americans resist limiting the capacity of magazines? If a kill can be achieved with one round, why object to limiting a magazine to ten rounds?

I am not fishing for a row, just genuinely trying to understand.
There's a couple of defensive firearms uses where rather more than a couple of rounds have been needed, including one where the guy had to use a second 30rd magazine in his AR.

Needless to say; criminals would ignore magazine limits in exactly the same way they ignore all the other laws, so only the law abiding suffer the consequences.
 
I seem to recall that that slimeball Clinton tried the hi capacity ban during his term as President, didn't work then, why should it work now?
 
You also forgot the good guy with a gun to stop the bad guy.....more effective than thoughts and prayers though.
Assuming he doesn't a) brass up more innocent good guys through inability to recognise the actual gunman b) put stray rounds into himself or others through shockingly bad weapons handling c) get shot himself by another gung-ho good guy mistaking him for the actual gunman d) string the scenario out unnecessarily by adding to the confusion and getting more folks killed than otherwise e) support the bad guy's right to bear arms in accordance with that add-on to the Constitution the writers weren't originally fussed enough about to include.
 
OK, I am not a hunter/weapon owner/clay pigeon shooter (even). The discussion over ammunition choice a few pages back means nothing to me (other than the NATO 7.62 & 5.56).
I note, however, that you were able to kill a goat/deer/antelope with one round over some distance. My question, therefore, is why do Americans resist limiting the capacity of magazines? If a kill can be achieved with one round, why object to limiting a magazine to ten rounds?

I am not fishing for a row, just genuinely trying to understand.

Well we also use firearms for self defense, besides hunting.

When hunting the standard PMAG is not filled to capacity because 20-30 rounds is a bit overkill. Shotguns are capped at 2 in the tube and 1 in the chamber.

For self defense purposes 10 rounds might not be enough. The lowest capacity handgun magazines that I possess contain 7 rounds (.45 ACP) while the highest contain 19 rounds (9mm). Nobody likes the idea of being limited to ten when one might need more than that.

Standard cap for the modern sporting rifles is 30 and 20 depending on caliber. Having to reload mags after ten rounds is a pain in the ass on the range. So part of it is just pure laziness on my part and millions of others. Besides when the Zombies rise I would prefer to have 30-20 rounds per magazine then 10. It only feels normal to use these on the range, anything less is just weird.

Another aspect is that gun banners start with magazine capacity limits and continue to chip away, first it is ten rounds then like the state of New York it is now 7 rounds.... The ban crowd will never be satisfied until they have eliminated civilian firearms ownership in the States.

I am not a big fan of the 60 round mags and the high capacity drums, so I don't own any of them. But I do own quite a few PMAGS and STANAGS and 20 rounders for the Springfield which over time come to a considerable investment. The Government can seriously kiss my ass if they expect me to just destroy them or turn them in, like the folks in Vermont with their bump stocks.
 
Assuming he doesn't a) brass up more innocent good guys through inability to recognise the actual gunman b) put stray rounds into himself or others through shockingly bad weapons handling c) get shot himself by another gung-ho good guy mistaking him for the actual gunman d) string the scenario out unnecessarily by adding to the confusion and getting more folks killed than otherwise e) support the bad guy's right to bear arms in accordance with that add-on to the Constitution the writers weren't originally fussed enough about to include.
So what is your solution then?
 
Assuming he doesn't a) brass up more innocent good guys through inability to recognise the actual gunman b) put stray rounds into himself or others through shockingly bad weapons handling c) get shot himself by another gung-ho good guy mistaking him for the actual gunman d) string the scenario out unnecessarily by adding to the confusion and getting more folks killed than otherwise e) support the bad guy's right to bear arms in accordance with that add-on to the Constitution the writers weren't originally fussed enough about to include.
You forgot to add such scenarios as:

f. Being struck by lightning.
g. Run over by a runaway bull, that just happened to be passing.
i. Having a heart attack.
j. The Yosemite fault finally blowing its top and reducing a large proportion of central USA to a wasteland.

In short, we can all play "BUT, WHAT IF?"
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top