A Serious Question -not sure where we go

[Indy317]

"Assault Weapons" can kill more people because they can shoot faster. Sure you can kill people with other weapons, but not quite as many quite as fast. Because of this, most young people want them all banned.

Using that premise, if we could just have firearms that load so slowly that a mass shooting is not possible, then we should be fine........right? Then law enforcement would not be "outgunned" and the ill informed masses would not want to ban it. Problem is, as far as I know, you would have to ban everything back to muzzleloaders to accomplish this.

I disagree. In my gun owning life I've had both an HK-91 clone and a Remington 700 bolt action rifle. Both rifles were chambered in .308. The HK-91 had magazines that held 20 rounds, at least the ones I had. The Remington 700 had a "fixed magazine" that held maybe five or so rounds. With enough time and money, I could load up hundred of rounds for the HK-91, and firing them off wouldn't be all that slow. It is true I could carry hundreds of rounds for the Remington 700, but the amount of time it would take to shoot the same number of rounds from the HK clone would've been astronomically higher. I'm not saying someone couldn't do a lot of damage with a bolt or lever action gun, what I'm saying is that there is a very noticeable time difference when it comes to reloading, both the feeding device and the firing of shots.

And considering the fact that many mass shooters have not used any "Assault Weapons" but rather used handguns and shotguns.....how long do you think it would be after all the "Assault Weapons" are banned that the new mass shooting weapons of choice is deemed to dangerous and must also be banned?

If the mass shootings continue with handguns using magazines that hold more than ten rounds, I do believe you'll see a strong push to either limit capacity of magazines. I do feel many people will want people forced to go back to revolvers. Again, same concept as with magazine feed, semi-auto rifles. Sure, a determined person can become quick at reloading a revolver, but there is still a large time difference in using speed loaders holding five or six rounds vs slamming in a magazine holding anywhere from say 12-21 rounds.

England is our case study. Because of mass shootings they started banning guns segments. Now all gun segments are banned. However, now that terrorist and mass killers have started cutting people apart in public with machetes and hatchets, They are banning all knifes and sharp objects to the point of utter ridiculousness.

I don't believe England is a good case study. They have a completely different mindset when it comes to self-defense, firearms, etc.. Yes, things are getting bad, but those people have a history of being ruled over, so no surprise the ruling class wants to just throw in more controls. Their entire history seems to be that. Before their current government they were ruled by monarchs.

I'm not claiming that banning "assault rifles" will prevent shootings, even mass shootings. What I'm saying is that there is a valid argument about the physical aspects involved if someone uses a semi-auto, magazine feed rifle vs. a Remington 700. I know many gun owners who've never owned an "assault rifle," but they've owned bolt or lever action rifles as well as semi-auto handguns. Plenty of these people will have no issue with supporting a ban if these mass shootings don't stop. Not sure how they'd feel if they continue with semi-auto handguns, something they do want to have for personal safety.

Yet despite what the 24/7/365 MSM would have everyone believe mass shootings are still an extremely rare occurrence and the chances of anyone becoming a victim of one is somewhere less than being struck by lightning (probably less than being struck by lightning while being attacked by a shark).

True enough, but then if they are so rare, should the whole "fight or fight" type drills we are providing to so many people continue? I've read on-line comments that having do this sort of drill is becoming a mental issue for some.

What do fractions matter, when shooters have minutes (or longer) unchallenged?

I've read police response has been all over the board. The guys in Ohio and California were engaged very quickly. If I need to get away from a killer with a gun, I'll take every second I can.

This was tried before. Bill Clinton's AWB was an abject failure. It had zero impact.

There was no magazine feed, semi-auto rifle ban under the Clinton AWB. That law banned simple cosmetic features. I purchased my first such rifle during the ban. The stock was fixed into place. Using that to compare what a true ban would do isn't a fair comparison.


I'll add one thing. Sure, the number of killings with a firearm due to a mass shooting is minimal, but the problem is that people do see a difference between drug dealers killing each other and say a robbery vs people who are just out to enjoy life getting blown away for no reason at all. People who don't really see themselves being robbed or engaging in the black market really don't care about stats that they feel have nothing to do with them. They do care about the stats that have to deal with them and their kids.

 

[jamil]

What do fractions matter, when shooters have minutes (or longer) unchallenged?

Magazine changes have zero impact on the efficacy of a mass shooting. See, for example, Virginia Tech (carried out with a .22 handgun) and Newtown (shooter was unchallenged by return fire for so long that any number of magazine changes could have taken place). See also Aurora, in which the shooter used a 100-round drum that (as they are wont to do) jammed.



Despite what the media would have you believe, most mass shootings are carried out with handguns.



All the more reason for the innocent and law-abiding to maintain the ability to return force with equal force.

This was tried before. Bill Clinton's AWB was an abject failure. It had zero impact.



They already had the votes in New York and Connecticut. How is that working out for them? Do you think it would be more, or less, successful across the country?



And even if it stands, the vast majority of us won't comply.

The gay night club shooter was there for something like 3 hours? Of course most of the shooting was done in the first few minutes. But still. He could take his time because no one dared to confront him. In a gun free zone, especially in an area where many people are conditioned to cower, it's likely that a shooting with a bolt action would have a similar impact. If there is no one to stop the shooter the shooter won't be stopped.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

I disagree. In my gun owning life I've had both an HK-91 clone and a Remington 700 bolt action rifle. Both rifles were chambered in .308. The HK-91 had magazines that held 20 rounds, at least the ones I had. The Remington 700 had a "fixed magazine" that held maybe five or so rounds. With enough time and money, I could load up hundred of rounds for the HK-91, and firing them off wouldn't be all that slow. It is true I could carry hundreds of rounds for the Remington 700, but the amount of time it would take to shoot the same number of rounds from the HK clone would've been astronomically higher. I'm not saying someone couldn't do a lot of damage with a bolt or lever action gun, what I'm saying is that there is a very noticeable time difference when it comes to reloading, both the feeding device and the firing of shots.



If the mass shootings continue with handguns using magazines that hold more than ten rounds, I do believe you'll see a strong push to either limit capacity of magazines. I do feel many people will want people forced to go back to revolvers. Again, same concept as with magazine feed, semi-auto rifles. Sure, a determined person can become quick at reloading a revolver, but there is still a large time difference in using speed loaders holding five or six rounds vs slamming in a magazine holding anywhere from say 12-21 rounds.



I don't believe England is a good case study. They have a completely different mindset when it comes to self-defense, firearms, etc.. Yes, things are getting bad, but those people have a history of being ruled over, so no surprise the ruling class wants to just throw in more controls. Their entire history seems to be that. Before their current government they were ruled by monarchs.

I'm not claiming that banning "assault rifles" will prevent shootings, even mass shootings. What I'm saying is that there is a valid argument about the physical aspects involved if someone uses a semi-auto, magazine feed rifle vs. a Remington 700. I know many gun owners who've never owned an "assault rifle," but they've owned bolt or lever action rifles as well as semi-auto handguns. Plenty of these people will have no issue with supporting a ban if these mass shootings don't stop. Not sure how they'd feel if they continue with semi-auto handguns, something they do want to have for personal safety.



True enough, but then if they are so rare, should the whole "fight or fight" type drills we are providing to so many people continue? I've read on-line comments that having do this sort of drill is becoming a mental issue for some.



I've read police response has been all over the board. The guys in Ohio and California were engaged very quickly. If I need to get away from a killer with a gun, I'll take every second I can.



There was no magazine feed, semi-auto rifle ban under the Clinton AWB. That law banned simple cosmetic features. I purchased my first such rifle during the ban. The stock was fixed into place. Using that to compare what a true ban would do isn't a fair comparison.


I'll add one thing. Sure, the number of killings with a firearm due to a mass shooting is minimal, but the problem is that people do see a difference between drug dealers killing each other and say a robbery vs people who are just out to enjoy life getting blown away for no reason at all. People who don't really see themselves being robbed or engaging in the black market really don't care about stats that they feel have nothing to do with them. They do care about the stats that have to deal with them and their kids.

Are you sure? Because from the general gist of your post sounds like banning so-called "assault weapons" (which they aren't by definition) it kinda sounds like you are.

 

[jamil]

Indy317 has a point that it is a reasonable argument. Yes, I can admit that an AR-15 style rifle with standard capacity magazines is more firepower than a bolt action. But that doesn’t mean that admitting that fact means we automatically accept a solution that includes a ban on these rifles. There are plenty of counter arguments.

 

[Tombs]

Indy317 has a point that it is a reasonable argument. Yes, I can admit that an AR-15 style rifle with standard capacity magazines is more firepower than a bolt action. But that doesn’t mean that admitting that fact means we automatically accept a solution that includes a ban on these rifles. There are plenty of counter arguments.

That's not really a fair comparison as the tactics and methods shift depending on the firearm. With a bolt action and a bit of practice, they wouldn't be running into a crowd to shoot people. They'd be hanging out on top of a parking garage and picking people off methodically, changing positions, and avoiding detection. The loss of life wouldn't be much different.

The tool decides the tactics. People don't often think about this, they just place a different gun in the same situation, while forgetting things that have happened in mass shootings throughout history. Had the DC sniper just used an AR15 in a crowd, it's unlikely he would have been as deadly, and it's assured he wouldn't have managed to cause the chaos that he did.

So no, I'm not going to concede that a bolt action has any less capacity for mayhem than an AR15.

If we want to get into the weeds, handguns are the most inherently dangerous firearms simply because of conceal-ability, giving a mass shooter additional time to pick the most optimal locations to do the most damage before being identified. And if they're careful they can easily just conceal their firearm again and walk off to their next murder spree.

It's really impossible for me to think of any firearm that is inherently any more dangerous than another when it comes to stuff like this, at least out of modern firearms. Like I said, it's all about the tool deciding the tactics. And out of the possible tactics to cause the most harm in a short period of time, I'd point to handguns. To cause the most chaos on a national scale and cause a drawn out scare, a bolt action.

 

[worddoer]

Indy317 has a point that it is a reasonable argument. Yes, I can admit that an AR-15 style rifle with standard capacity magazines is more firepower than a bolt action. But that doesn’t mean that admitting that fact means we automatically accept a solution that includes a ban on these rifles. There are plenty of counter arguments.

A very good point regarding counter arguments.

I disagree. In my gun owning life I've had both an HK-91 clone and a Remington 700 bolt action rifle. Both rifles were chambered in .308. The HK-91 had magazines that held 20 rounds, at least the ones I had. The Remington 700 had a "fixed magazine" that held maybe five or so rounds. With enough time and money, I could load up hundred of rounds for the HK-91, and firing them off wouldn't be all that slow. It is true I could carry hundreds of rounds for the Remington 700, but the amount of time it would take to shoot the same number of rounds from the HK clone would've been astronomically higher. I'm not saying someone couldn't do a lot of damage with a bolt or lever action gun, what I'm saying is that there is a very noticeable time difference when it comes to reloading, both the feeding device and the firing of shots.

If the mass shootings continue with handguns using magazines that hold more than ten rounds, I do believe you'll see a strong push to either limit capacity of magazines. I do feel many people will want people forced to go back to revolvers. Again, same concept as with magazine feed, semi-auto rifles. Sure, a determined person can become quick at reloading a revolver, but there is still a large time difference in using speed loaders holding five or six rounds vs slamming in a magazine holding anywhere from say 12-21 rounds.

So, based on your post above, it would seem to me that your argument is based on the rate of fire and magazine capacity. "Assault Weapons" have a rate and sustainability of fire that is unacceptable. But a bolt action does not. There are some who can fire pump and lever actions at near semi auto rates. And while bolt actions are slower, they can fire faster than most realize. Ever hear of the "mad minute"? WWI soldiers were firing 40-45 rounds a minute with their bolt actions that used stripper clips and a fixed 10 round magazine. So 40-45 rounds a minute (almost 1 round per second) is acceptable.......what level is not acceptable?

Based on your argument, and to make sure we cover all weapons that can sustain a rate of fire that is unacceptable, we must then determine what an acceptable rate of fire is. I am assuming your idea of limiting magazine size would limit duration of fire. At what rate of fire should we outlaw and ban some guns while others are unaffected? What scientific method do you propose we use to measure this rate of fire (operator method and technique can make significant difference in how fast each gun is fired)?

You seemed convinced that your bolt action rifle and revolver are safe because they may only kill 1/2 the people that an "Assault Weapon" or "Large Capacity" pistol might during a mass shooting. But when people are still being killed with revolvers and bolt actions, the very same argument you are using claiming semi automatic rifles are unacceptable will be used for bolt actions and revolvers. It has happened several times in history, it can/will happen here too.

I don't believe England is a good case study. They have a completely different mindset when it comes to self-defense, firearms, etc.. Yes, things are getting bad, but those people have a history of being ruled over, so no surprise the ruling class wants to just throw in more controls.

I find it interesting that in one post you talk about how Americans have a different mindset yet in your earlier post you said this.....

More and more of the young people I know are ready for “assault weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to go. Eventually they will have the votes.

You are making the error in assuming that the English government forced gun control on the English population. There were petitions by citizens calling their government to ban all handguns and most firearms after 2 mass shootings in 1997. You just said that "young people" are looking at doing the very same thing that England did. If we act the same way England did, we will get the same results England did. You also said the English let this happen because they "have a history of being ruled over". Yet, there is a larger and larger segment of American citizens (not just young people) who believe and are voting for Socialism and/or Communism (both are forms of government that rule over the people and are not liberty or rights focused) and want the government to rule over them. Since Americans are increasingly looking to be ruled over as well....again, same path as England, same results as England. It seems to me that using England as a case study is far more accurate than some would admit.

I know many gun owners who've never owned an "assault rifle," but they've owned bolt or lever action rifles as well as semi-auto handguns. Plenty of these people will have no issue with supporting a ban if these mass shootings don't stop. Not sure how they'd feel if they continue with semi-auto handguns, something they do want to have for personal safety.

So you are saying that the gun owners you know are willing to let others people's guns be taken away.....as long as they get to keep the guns they want. If someone is not willing to defend someone else's rights, then they don't deserve the rights they themselves have. Most soldiers who give their lives for this country do so with the knowledge that they were defending the rights of others.... rights they themselves may never use. Selling out the rights of others because you don't personally use that right is a self centered and narcissistic thing to do. They may be gun owners, but they are certainly NOT 2nd amendment supporters.

 

[jamil]

That's not really a fair comparison as the tactics and methods shift depending on the firearm. With a bolt action and a bit of practice, they wouldn't be running into a crowd to shoot people. They'd be hanging out on top of a parking garage and picking people off methodically, changing positions, and avoiding detection. The loss of life wouldn't be much different.

The tool decides the tactics. People don't often think about this, they just place a different gun in the same situation, while forgetting things that have happened in mass shootings throughout history. Had the DC sniper just used an AR15 in a crowd, it's unlikely he would have been as deadly, and it's assured he wouldn't have managed to cause the chaos that he did.

So no, I'm not going to concede that a bolt action has any less capacity for mayhem than an AR15.

If we want to get into the weeds, handguns are the most inherently dangerous firearms simply because of conceal-ability, giving a mass shooter additional time to pick the most optimal locations to do the most damage before being identified. And if they're careful they can easily just conceal their firearm again and walk off to their next murder spree.

It's really impossible for me to think of any firearm that is inherently any more dangerous than another when it comes to stuff like this, at least out of modern firearms. Like I said, it's all about the tool deciding the tactics. And out of the possible tactics to cause the most harm in a short period of time, I'd point to handguns. To cause the most chaos on a national scale and cause a drawn out scare, a bolt action.

You’ve just articulated a few of the counter-arguments quite nicely. The argument was narrowed to the firepower of the weapon itself, and it’s advantages in the way they’re being used in the mass shootings now. You pointed out that the tactics can even out the firepower.

It’s okay to admit when an argument is valid and true, but then counter with other arguments that are also valid and true.

 

[chipbennett]

I've read police response has been all over the board. The guys in Ohio and California were engaged very quickly. If I need to get away from a killer with a gun, I'll take every second I can.

And I'll take every round I can get.

There was no magazine feed, semi-auto rifle ban under the Clinton AWB. That law banned simple cosmetic features. I purchased my first such rifle during the ban. The stock was fixed into place. Using that to compare what a true ban would do isn't a fair comparison.

Indeed. Because such a ban would be inherently unconstitutional, both under the second amendment as written and as determined in Heller. All Clinton could do was ban certain cosmetic features.

I'll add one thing. Sure, the number of killings with a firearm due to a mass shooting is minimal, but the problem is that people do see a difference between drug dealers killing each other and say a robbery vs people who are just out to enjoy life getting blown away for no reason at all. People who don't really see themselves being robbed or engaging in the black market really don't care about stats that they feel have nothing to do with them. They do care about the stats that have to deal with them and their kids.

And still, there is no statistical argument to be made on the basis of school mass shootings, because they remain so rare that any change in rate is not statistically significant.

If anything, a correlation may be able to be drawn between implementation of the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act and an increase in school mass shootings. I'm not sure that correlation would even be statistically significant, and correlation doesn't prove causation (though the writings of several mass shooters certainly support the contention that the increase in areas that force law-abiding people to disarm has led to an increase in mass shooters targeting people in such areas).

 

[chipbennett]

The gay night club shooter was there for something like 3 hours? Of course most of the shooting was done in the first few minutes. But still. He could take his time because no one dared to confront him. In a gun free zone, especially in an area where many people are conditioned to cower, it's likely that a shooting with a bolt action would have a similar impact. If there is no one to stop the shooter the shooter won't be stopped.

Exactly. It seems that LEO and other second-responders are finally recognizing that the standoff tactic doesn't work, and are training to engage active shooters, so that they become dead or otherwise inactive shooters. But look at so many mass shootings: the shooters had so much time to act with impunity that the time needed to change a magazine would have been irrelevant. And both Virginia Tech and Parkland were carried out using 10-round magazines.

 

[chipbennett]

Indy317 has a point that it is a reasonable argument. Yes, I can admit that an AR-15 style rifle with standard capacity magazines is more firepower than a bolt action. But that doesn’t mean that admitting that fact means we automatically accept a solution that includes a ban on these rifles. There are plenty of counter arguments.

I disagree. It is an argument, but it is not reasonable, because it is specious. Further, it is an argument refuted by empirical evidence.

 

[BugI02]

And I'll take every round I can get.



Indeed. Because such a ban would be inherently unconstitutional, both under the second amendment as written and as determined in Heller. All Clinton could do was ban certain cosmetic features.



And still, there is no statistical argument to be made on the basis of school mass shootings, because they remain so rare that any change in rate is not statistically significant.

If anything, a correlation may be able to be drawn between implementation of the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act and an increase in school mass shootings. I'm not sure that correlation would even be statistically significant, and correlation doesn't prove causation (though the writings of several mass shooters certainly support the contention that the increase in areas that force law-abiding people to disarm has led to an increase in mass shooters targeting people in such areas).

Correct

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3377801
Schools that Allow Teachers to Carry Guns are Extremely Safe: Data on the Rate of Shootings and Accidents in Schools that allow Teachers to Carry

 

[jamil]

I disagree. It is an argument, but it is not reasonable, because it is specious. Further, it is an argument refuted by empirical evidence.

It's not specious to say that an AR 15 with a standard mag is more firepower. It's more maneuverable in close spaces. It can reach out reasonably far. You can put more shots on target without reloading, and in a shorter period of time, in more circumstances than you can with a bolt action. Those things are all true. Both rifles have different purposes, but the AR is more multipurpose than the bolt action. It's designed to be that. It's not an admission that it's right to ban it to admit the things that are true. It's a valid and reasonable argument to make. But, on the flip side, there are also valid and reasonable counter-arguments to make. One of those was the one I made relating to the gay night club shooting. Yes, inside that club, an AR will kill people faster than a bolt action assuming you're not a gifted shooter. But, he wouldn't have needed an AR to do the same thing that he did in that circumstance because people just cowered in place and were static targets.

 

[jamil]

Correct

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3377801
Schools that Allow Teachers to Carry Guns are Extremely Safe: Data on the Rate of Shootings and Accidents in Schools that allow Teachers to Carry

I'm glad to see some numbers actually come out. I'm not surprised. I'm not sure though that those numbers would translate if every school did the same thing. I kinda suspect that school districts which would even allow teachers to carry would tend to be districts where there is higher acceptances of defensive gun use and ownership anyway. I'm kinda skeptical that bat****opia California, where women are "men", and men menstruate, could actually make it work with that kind of success.

 

[AJMD429]

Keep in mind that the wrong answer is still the wrong answer, no how many times the question is asked.

If I am being pressured, as a physician, to prescribe an antibiotic for an epidemic, yet know that antibiotic won't work, and in fact is very toxic, the fact that MORE people are dying of that same infection this week doesn't mean that I should "compromise" now and prescribe that wrong treatment, just because things are worse.

Wrong is wrong.

 

[JettaKnight]

Correct

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3377801
Schools that Allow Teachers to Carry Guns are Extremely Safe: Data on the Rate of Shootings and Accidents in Schools that allow Teachers to Carry

Devil's advocate here, but I'm not sure that John Lott is considered unbiased.

 

[jamil]

Devil's advocate here, but I'm not sure that John Lott is considered unbiased.

Depends which side you're on.

 

[JettaKnight]

Depends which side you're on.

I would say that "unbiased" means consensus by those in the middle of the bell curve (i.e. a majority) that the conclusions are unbiased.


Not saying I don't agree with him, I'm just not sure his conclusions will be widely accepted. If a study is a released, but no one believes it (except ardents), then what value is it?

 

[jamil]

I would say that "unbiased" means consensus by those in the middle of the bell curve (i.e. a majority) that the conclusions are unbiased.


Not saying I don't agree with him, I'm just not sure his conclusions will be widely accepted. If a study is a released, but no one believes it (except ardents), then what value is it?

That's not the world we live in. It's not a bell curve because it's not normal distribution. This curve has a bimodal distribution. Any research on topics that are highly partisan will not be widely accepted.

 

[BugI02]

I would say that "unbiased" means consensus by those in the middle of the bell curve (i.e. a majority) that the conclusions are unbiased.


Not saying I don't agree with him, I'm just not sure his conclusions will be widely accepted. If a study is a released, but no one believes it (except ardents), then what value is it?

So, you're talking 'settled science' and '97% of scientists agree' or what? Groups with a vested interest in the status quo view consensus for change suspiciously. Ditto for those with a vested interest in radical change vis a vis consensus for conserving the old ways. Since Mr Lott is dealing with numbers, you might have to review his statistical methods and make a decision for yourself. Consensus == wisdom of the crowd == shouting out questions in a bar. Consensus just means an oversupply of wrong people

 

[Floivanus]

Life would find a way OP, guns have been converted from bolt action to semiauto and even fully auto in the past, the potato digger was prototyped by John Browning from a lever gun. If anybody thinks our fabrication technology hasn’t progressed in the past 200 years they’re living under a rock; the Luty SMG pops up from time to time in Australia, a full fledged factory was found overseas pumping out full auto tec9 clones.

When a ban on semiautos comes down it will change nothing, some nutter will still find a way

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=IVNQQplAzu0