Mass Shootings in the US

Limited capacity magazines either reduce a persons capacity to cause harm or they don’t. You can’t have it both ways.

Perhaps the dynamics of a mass homicide conducted using firearms means that the increased encumbrance of smaller magazines does not have much significance, but equally we don’t have too much in the way of evidence that says that spree shooters would not have killed more had they had larger magazines or fewer had they been restricted to smaller ones.

The existing quantities of magazines would indeed make a ban problematic, but it advances neither side to claim that black is white then get run over at the next zebra crossing.
So yiu have no issue with revolvers. 6 shots, then a manual reload.
 
So yiu have no issue with revolvers. 6 shots, then a manual reload.
That's a point, why are revolvers so rare in these mass shooting incidents in the US? After all, bolt action rifles would lead to a larger body count than semi automatic weapons ;)

Want to get a reality high body count.... bolt action rifle with a moderator shooting into a downtown area. But gun grabbers fixate on the ooooh scary! dagagagada guns, semis auto bad, fudd guns good ....except fudd guns are the tool of choice for professional marksmen.
 
That's a point, why are revolvers so rare in these mass shooting incidents in the US? After all, bolt action rifles would lead to a larger body count than semi automatic weapons ;)
Because we septics are naturally lazy, who has the time to load between 6-8 rounds individually or fiddle with moon clips? I mean Christ on a bicycle people we don’t have people to reload our weapons for us!
 
That's a point, why are revolvers so rare in these mass shooting incidents in the US? After all, bolt action rifles would lead to a larger body count than semi automatic weapons ;)

You want rapid fire?

Lever guns deliver, but they are fudd guns so cool with gun banners.
 
For the cousins on the island.

After the Gun Ban

The problem with gun banners is ‘projection’

These are highly emotional people who don’t trust their own ability to control their emotions, and assume everyone lacks their self control.
What gun banners are really saying is.....’ I couldn’t trust myself not to go tonto if I had access to a firearm, so we need to ban guns to eliminate that risk’
 
The problem with gun banners is ‘projection’

These are highly emotional people who don’t trust their own ability to control their emotions, and assume everyone lacks their self control.
What gun banners are really saying is.....’ I couldn’t trust myself not to go tonto if I had access to a firearm, so we need to ban guns to eliminate that risk’
Where's the data to support that?

Opinions are like arse holes, everyone's got one.

Just look on here where 'opinions' come in research:

 
The problem with gun banners is ‘projection’

These are highly emotional people who don’t trust their own ability to control their emotions, and assume everyone lacks their self control.
What gun banners are really saying is.....’ I couldn’t trust myself not to go tonto if I had access to a firearm, so we need to ban guns to eliminate that risk’
That’s arrant nonsense.

Gun control types think nothing of the sort.

They DO think that they would prefer not to have them and their families brassed up by some loon with his penis extension in their schools, shops, diners, bars and places of worship.

Not an unrealistic aspiration really.
 
That’s arrant nonsense.

Gun control types think nothing of the sort.

They DO think that they would prefer not to have them and their families brassed up by some loon with his penis extension in their schools, shops, diners, bars and places of worship.

Not an unrealistic aspiration really.

Fearfull frothers will however get in car and run a risk thousands of times higher of being randomly killed.
 
Yes, hence their continued targeting for mass slaughter.

Mass shooters are predators, they want the easy marks that can’t fight back.

So basically - the gun grabbers think that by removing lots of guns, and eliminating the risk of return fire, they will make the nuts not go nuts and kill people in no-low gun zones.

Makes perfect sense!


After all, DC was a perfect example of strict gun control reducing gun crime…

Oh wait!
 
Fearfull frothers will however get in car and run a risk thousands of times higher of being randomly killed.
Not really a valid comparison. For many reasons.

Most Americans have to drive to work, shops, leisure pursuits etc.

They don’t have to get shot by nutters going postal.

Road fatalities in the US have reduced nearly every year over the last fifty years and are less than half what they were in 1968 on a per capita basis (26 per hundred thousand down to 11). This reduction is in many ways down to control (speed limits, seat belts, crumple zones, airbags etc) so legal controls can affect mortality rates.

Nearly every single American above late teenage drives. Not every American has a gun. Far from it.

You seem to be the sort of person who would argue that a soldier was safer getting mortared at Khe Sanh than driving at home.
 
So basically - the gun grabbers think that by removing lots of guns, and eliminating the risk of return fire, they will make the nuts not go nuts and kill people in no-low gun zones.

Makes perfect sense!


After all, DC was a perfect example of strict gun control reducing gun crime…

Oh wait!
Yes by removing all guns or as many as they can crime will magically go away. Everybody will magically get along and a black market will not spring up to supply citizens and criminals alike.
 
When Yanks wax lyrical about self defence fantasies involving their countrymen rising up as one to defend the Republic, like a bad remake of Red Dawn, I often think of Operation Hero Protect. This was a national scheme where heavily armed and otherwise clueless gun nuts arrived uninvited to stand outside US armed forces recruiting offices to protect the unarmed heroes within. What could go wrong?

By lunch time on the first day of the operation, there had been so many negligent discharges and people shot in the arrse by their own guns because they lacked basic safety skills that the DoD told them to feck off or face arrest for armed trespass.
I didn't know that. Thanks for the laugh.
 
strict Gun control, is the answer - see

Honduras
Venezuela
Jamaica
Guatemala
El Salvador
Go ahead and Chicago and Baltimore to that list.

The more you try to ban something the more in demand it becomes. The ironic part is that the Donald has been good for gun control, which nobody seems to fecking realize. When people don't fear that their ability to buy a firearm is going to be in jeopardy many don't. It is when they think a ban is coming that everybody and their mother goes out and acquires them. Regardless of their ability to use their newly acquired purchases.
 
I didn't know that. Thanks for the laugh.
I wouldn't laugh too hard. He made most of it up, as has been pointed out to him before.
 

rampant

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
strict Gun control, is the answer - see

Honduras
Venezuela
Jamaica
Guatemala
El Salvador
On all but one of those examples you list the government is a virtually non existant cluster **** incapable of enforcing its own laws or so currupt that they are actually contributing to the proliferation of violent crime. So their guns laws are just worthless.

A strawman so big that Edward Woodward could have lost his virginity and raised his family inside it.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top