What you saw as surprise was probably confusion, since all they saw was a guy fist-pumping and yelling about dismembering babies or something. Like, “Is this guy on our side or what?”
Even today you can’t be sure that your opponent won’t be better armed than you, be wearing some sort of armor, and won’t ambush you.
Or be firing from a place where you can’t get him. Even if a country music fan in Vegas had an AR-15 in the concert crowd, it wouldn’t have done much good. If no one had one, a lot of lives would have been saved.
If one finds themselves desiring to kill multiple children in a large municipal building, few weapons would be more useful than the AR-15, or similar short-barrelled semi-auto rifle-caliber weapons with large magazines. The perfect combination of accuracy and ease-of-aiming, rapid fire (one shot per trigger pull), maneuverability, high-power for deadly wounds, and long times between the vulnerability of reloading. Truly the weapon of choice for the discerning mass shooter.
I cited an article discussing studies that backup my claim.
Waiting for you to provide studies that show people without guns are at greater risk of harm than those with guns.
What do you imagine the rate of fire is for a revolver with a speed loader?
I agree it’s slower than an AR-15 with a bump stock, but I don’t agree it makes rapid commission of mass murder impossible.
Of course, a pressure cooker loaded with shrapnel is even MORE effective at that.
Do what Canada does.
I’m fairly sure Stephen Paddock couldn’t have shot 600 people with a revolver.
I do not shoot guns but I’d be willing to bet you need to practice a fair bit to be fast with a speedloader not to mention be accurate when firing a revolver as quickly as possible.
I’d think someone with a lot less practice can manage more carnage with an AR-15 and a bump stock than that same unpracticed person could manage with a revolver and a speed loader. Also I think it’d get tiring pretty quickly operating a revolver like that (trigger finger would get tired and slow down over time). Something that is not a concern with the AR-15 + bump stock.
But as said I am no expert in shooting either one so will defer to those who have.
Are you under the impression that more people have been killed with pressure cooker bombs than AR-15s? Or that the kill rate in pressure cooker bomb incidents is higher than in AR-15 incidents? What exactly are you getting at here with the pressure cooker business?
You are comparing apples to oranges though. If you want to compare a revolver you need to compare it to a semi-automatic hand gun. If you want to compare something with the AR-15, you compare it to something like this. I’m fairly confident that someone who has the rudiments of experience with rifles could use this weapon to do nearly as much damage as the Vegas shooter in the 10 minute time window, assuming they had money to buy a bunch of clips (or bought extended mags for it).
You are basically correct about the speedloader wrt a revolver verse a semi-automatic handgun with the caveat that firing a semi-automatic handgun rapidly can tend to jam, especially in the hands of someone with only rudimentary experience while a revolver is pretty idiot proof. You can use a speedloader if you can push a lever, turn your hand to the side and put a round peg in a round hole and twist, but you can reload a semi-auto much faster and of course you get more rounds in a clip than a revolver cylinder.
Bombs can potentially do more damage, but in the US guns are of course the weapon of choice. Outside of a few spectacular events both weapons account for fairly small numbers of deaths per year, but certainly AR-15’s have killed more people IN AMERICA than pressure cooker bombs. I’m pretty confident that both are dwarfed by cheeseburgers, cigarettes, alcohol and probably ladders if we look at things over longer periods of time than a year.
In the US wrt guns, handguns are definitely the big killers, not rifles. Rifles though seem to be the death weapons of choice for crazy killers on a shooting spree, however.
And how many of those handgun kills were defensive kills?
AR-15s are for wimps.
#37. There is no “overkill.” There is only “open fire” and “I need to reload.”
Ah, Missouri, the “Shoot Me!” state…
I think he’s saying that a criminal may think twice about using a pressure cooker bomb on a crowd when he doesn’t know who might be carrying a concealed deep fryer, waffle iron or bain-marie.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a crock pot is a good guy with a toaster oven!
Yes, I do think that a 100% chance of me not having a gun, combined with a less-than-100% chance of my attacker not having a gun, is an improvement of my self-defense ability. As a cite, I offer the entire civilized world. Pick any civilized country, any at all, and you’ll find that they people there are much better-equipped to defend themselves, as evidenced by the fact that they don’t get killed as much as we do. So why don’t we have a right to defend ourselves the same way they do? Talk about “gun rights” as much as you like, but the right to own a gun is in direct conflict with the right to defend yourself, and of the two, self-defense is more important.
I don’t believe that’s the common understanding of the matter. It certainly is at odds with the SCOTUS precedent:
Let’s see what else the SCOTUS said:
So we can ban all weapons except the guns you could buy in 1791. I’m ok with that.
That understanding of the matter is a lot more common than the American one.