Political Correct brainwashing burned me

No, this all happened within a few minutes.

No, right as he was walking out of the church. The "good guy" didn't have time to put on his shoes.

Yes, he DID hit him, and likely either would would have proved fatal in a few more minutes. He was hit in the thigh and torso, and was hurt so bad he dropped the assault rifle. The "bad guy" apparently called his dad to say he "wasn't going to make it" before shooting himself.

Yes, quite right, nobody knows this.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Elson
Loading thread data ...

However it is a safe bet that he could not have killed as many people as he did if assault rifles and were banned outside the military.

What is the wrong with the NRA? Why are they not calling for a total ban on assault rifles? Or do they act as a voice for the sellers instead? Follow the money...

John

Reply to
John Robertson

Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Learn something.

Absolutely nothing.

Reply to
krw

Since I wrote my post, more information has come out - that's why I wrote "As far as I understood it". Yes, it seems that the good guy really did help here.

Exactly.

And when evaluating this, you have to avoid selection bias. In this particular case, a responsible citizen with a gun /did/ help out, and almost certainly saved lives. But how many more lives are lost due to responsible citizens with guns where something goes wrong - accidents, suicides, drunken rages, mistaken identity, etc.? Unfortunately for the safety and comfort of Americans, drama, heroism and survivor bias weigh far more heavily than dry statistics.

I also read recently that not only was this guy discharged from the air force, convicted and jailed for violence (breaking his own kid's skull), but he also escaped from a mental hospital. And yet he had no problem buying a semi-automatic rifle!

Reply to
David Brown

Assault weapons are full Auto. They have been illegal for a long time. Almost as long as it's been illegal to ignore the lying liberal media, in Canada.

You see too many bad movies where some 'hero' fires 1000s rounds of ammo, nonstop. The military switched to single, or a three round burst, decades ago. Barrels overheat and warp with continuous fire. You should bve ashamed of your rampant stupidity.

Reply to
Michael A Terrell

That's because the Air Force didn't follow US Military procedure and report his crimes to the FBI, as they are required to.

Reply to
Michael A Terrell

Rampant stupidity seems to be the "guiding light" of the Left Wing

...Jim Thompson

--
| James E.Thompson                                 |    mens     | 
| Analog Innovations                               |     et      | 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Jim Thompson

It seems that everything they know about weapons is from Saturday Morning Cartoons.

Reply to
Michael A Terrell

ACME full semi-automatic AR14?

Reply to
krw

Do you really expect the government to follow the law?

Reply to
krw

Ah, glad you cleared that up. Yes, it makes /much/ more sense that violent ex-cons should be allowed to buy rifles that allow them to massacre people in controlled rapid bursts - just as long as they are not allowed to buy fully automatic weapons that would empty the magazine at the first victim and then overheat the barrel.

And don't forget - the key thing to remember in this incident is the exact definition of the term "assault weapon", which should not be used when you mean "the kind of gun suitable for trained military personnel for efficiently and reliably killing lots of enemy soldiers". Obviously /everyone/ should have the right to have such weapons, to defend themselves against their democratically elected government. But don't call them "assault rifles" - that would be silly.

Reply to
David Brown

In a sane system, it would go the other way before being allowed to buy a weapon like that - the authority issuing a license for such a gun should conduct background checks which in this case would mean that /they/ would contact the Air Force and ask about him before issuing a license.

I know many Americans like to argue that they all, by default, have the right to own a gun unless it is proven that they should not. That makes sense when you are talking about a small handgun for personal defence. (Personally, I don't think that this is reasonable, but I appreciate other people do.)

But no one needs a gun like this for normal personal use. It is well beyond personal defence, and no use for sports, recreation, hunting, etc. So if it is to be allowed at all, the burden of proof (and the cost of getting the proof) for a license to buy such a weapon should be on the person buying it. Instead of the authorities having to prove that you are are not entitled to buy it, you should have to prove that you /are/ entitled to it.

Reply to
David Brown

Nothing compares to the 'Acme Portable Hole'! :)

Reply to
Michael A Terrell

Mostly, but not the Air Force. They ignore the stench of their shit. They brag about never getting their hands dirty. The Army or Navy engineers build their war zone facilities, because the pilots might chip a nail.

If the Air Force properly reported their mistakes, it would hurt their image.

Reply to
Michael A Terrell

Moron. Ex cons aren't allowed to own any weapons, unless their full rights are restored in the courts. There isn't a single maazine that will hold enough ammo, to overheat the barrel,

Obviously you aren't man enough to be allowed to touch ANY weapon. I qualified with all individual military weapons when I served, and I wouldn't trust a pussy like you with any of them. My favorite weapon was the single shot M72 'LAW' A simple, but effective disposable bazooka. Thermite grenades were fun, as well. Once ignited, it would go through the hood of a vehicle, and burn through the engine and still be ready to eat more steel as it came through the oil pan.

'Assault Rifle' is a made up term. There are single shot, multi-round and full automatic like belt fed machine guns

As far as "efficiently and reliably killing lots of enemy soldiers", in a kill or be killed situation the last thing you want is a cheap toy that can't hold enough ammunition. The three round burst is the most effective. Full auto quickly turns into 'Spray and Pray' as you can no longer aim the weapon as it wastes ammo.

In spite of the reality of Physics, the media and fools believe that you could kill 1000 people in a half second with full auto. Between the recoil, and climb in the aim, you are shooting above your targets.

Reply to
Michael A Terrell

What do you know about sanity? Why would someone admit to being a Veteran with a DD, when they want a weapon? Are you suggesting that every applicant, for every weapon be researched to all branches of the Military, each time they apply? Where is your sanity? Instead, hold anyone responsible for entering the data liable for not doing their jobs.

That would be an impossible task, and you would know that if you had a mind. It would cost the country more than the routine collection of arrest records, military records and court cases into a computer system.

Instead of the authorities having to

Sure. Then the next 'logical' step is a registry so that they can be confiscated. SIGH HEIL, dumbass.

You are so blinded by your 'brilliance' that you can't see your rampant, festering stupidity.

Reply to
Michael A Terrell

The shooter here had been jailed for violence. Doesn't that make him an ex-con? You can say it was the Air Force that screwed up, or that it was a human error, or whatever - but the fact is that he had recently been jailed for violence before he bought a weapon whose sole purpose is to make it easy to kill lots of people.

Playing "macho" and claiming to be a "/real/ man" just makes you look stupid.

I don't doubt that messing around with guns and bombs is fun. But I would suggest that someone who sees them mainly as fun is the least qualified to use them. And someone who is trained to use serious weapons should know well that they do not belong in the hands of a civilian.

So given the choice, I would certainly trust myself with a gun far more than I would trust /you/ with one - precisely because I /know/ I am not trained to use one, and I don't treat them as a sort of nerf toy for grown up kids.

That's fine. I know enough about guns to know about the basic different types. The term "assault rifle" may be a "made up" term - but so are all terms, and it seems there is a reasonable consensus on what it means in common usage (being "a kind of gun you expect only military personnel to have"). Military people or other experts will, of course, use more precise terms - that does not mean a common use term has no value.

I am well aware of the differences between real physics, and Hollywood physics. My experience of firearms may be very small, but I know that much. And I quite appreciate why semi-automatic or three round burst is much more effective than fully automatic (unless you have a big belt driven machine gun on a stand or mount, and with someone feeding the ammo).

Reply to
David Brown

For a gun like that? Yes. That is /exactly/ what I am suggesting.

The applicant should be checked out for any military records, police records (state, federal, whatever), and relevant medical records (no one with mental issues need apply, obviously - nor those with epilepsy, heart problems, or anything else that makes them a risk of being unexpectedly unable to control the gun). Their economic records should be checked, and perhaps family should have basic checks too. Everything practical should be done to confirm that the person getting the gun is a stable, reliable, healthy, honest, responsible and non-violent individual. (Clearly a lot of the effort here could be reduced by keeping more centralised records, and making sure each instance updates these appropriately.)

And they should be obligatory training courses and tests - unless the person's military record clearly shows they already have the qualifications.

Of course this would make a license for such weapons far more expensive

- the gun purchaser should be paying the costs here. But so what? No one has any need of such weapons (outside the military) - anyone who feels they /need/ one certainly should not get one.

Sure, you do what you can to improve that situation too.

If you can't be sure (to a reasonable level - you can never be 100% sure, of course) that weapons like that are only going to be available to people that will misuse them, then don't allow them to be sold.

Of course such guns should be registered! Are you telling me that there is no registry of firearms like this in the USA?

Reply to
David Brown

You want an even less accurate system, to replace what is in use?

Sigh. You are all over the map. Now you are implying what I said.

How about extensive and expensive background checks for a vehicle? No one needs them, either. Maybe five year's of the individual's income, since more people die from vehicles, than from guns. Not only that, but you can run over thousands of people before you need to refill the tank. Then there are the number of kids that die in swimming pools.

This isn't Nazi, Germany, 'Comrade'.

Reply to
Michael A Terrell

Got it. Showing facts makes on look stupid, in your view.

Of course you would. A fool who doesn't know anything about weapons, instead of someone who spent weeks in a classroom being taught how to safely transport, use and maintain weapons isn't up to your standards. The first day we were taken to a range, they filled a large ammo can with water, and fired a single round through it from 100 yards the front of the can had a hole for the standard NATO round, the entire rear of the can was peeled away. There wasn't a single smile as the Range Instructor pointed out that was what a round to your skull would do yo your brain, and that there were no second chances. Anyone properly trained knows that any weapon can kill.

A term created by a reporter who calls every weapon an AR15? Reporters who can't identify a pickup from a car? One who called a hot pink NERF rifle an AR15? These fools shouldn't be allowed to 'create' any terms.

And many people to shlep the ammo cans. You have to break down and clean a weapon at set intervals. The burnt gunpowder gets into the mechanism, and mixes with the gun oil. That slows the action and increases the wear.

Reply to
Michael A Terrell

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.