Not to mention that the basis of this thread seems to be the danger posed by military-style weapons versus non-military weapons.
If we listed every time someone killed someone else with a common shotgun, or hunting rifle, or handgun (which most people don’t want to ban), the list would be quite a few thousand times longer.
So, if you want to be consistent, then I hope you advocate banning all guns, because there’s no real rational basis for banning scary looking guns based on a few very rare incidents when more common, less scary looking guns are involved in many many many more incidents all the time.
It would be hypocritical to be okay with hunting rifles, shotguns, and handguns, on a damage-caused utilitarian basis, but then think that scary looking rifles are a menace to society that must be dealt with.
But how many rounds can they fire in half a minute? How much ammo can they hold at one time? I know I can look this up myself, but the more I read of your posts the more I trust that you will be factual, and many 'net sites aren’t upfront about their biases. I guess what I am saying is that if I HAD to choose, I would rather have two or three people mortally wounded than twenty or thirty perforated.
I can reload my Mossberg in less than 5 seconds using a stripper tube.
Muffin, you really need to add a few Dragon’s Breath rounds to the mix before you hit the mall. Can’t have too many flames. That is what you are asking for, right?
I appreciate that you trust that I’m giving you honest information. I try to - if you have to deceive to try to make a point, it’s probably not a point worth making.
This is an odd place we’re going with this thread, comparing the practical effect of various tools in a killing spree, but…
Pump action shotguns? IIRC 8 round magazine tubes are fairly common, and could be spent in 30 seconds. The reloading obviously is a slower process. But the ability to strictly put out rounds isn’t the only factor. Shotguns aren’t the “point in the general direction of the target and fire” guns that they’re portrayed in popular culture to be, but they require less skill to hit a target at close range than a rifle. And each individual hit is going to give far more lethal force than a rifle. And depending on the shells, choke, etc., in a crowded area scenario, each shotgun round has the potential to kill multiple people.
However, if you had someone who was very familiar with the weaponry, and was well trained, a semi-automatic rifle would probably be more versatile and be able to cause more damage all around. But that’s skill you’d only see out of ex-military or a dedicated hobbyist. For most purposes, the shotgun would be better.
But even considering that, take this example.
The mini-14, pictured here is a gas-powered semi-automatic .223 caliber rifle fed with a detachable magazines. It’s very common, and looks pretty much like a conventional rifle.
The AR-15, pictured here is a gas-powered semi-automatic .223 caliber rifle fed with a detachable magazine. It’s very common, and yet looks like a scary military weapon.
The former is not considered an “assault weapon” while the latter is. And in case you didn’t notice, I used the same words to describe each. Because they function identically - you get one round per trigger pull and you swap magazines, and they shoot the same rounds. They have the same capabilities. Either would be roughly equally effective in a killing spree. The only difference is cosmetic. And yet one is a menace to society and needs to be banned, and the other one is just a fun varmint hunting rifle.
So what do we do about that list (and I’m confident there are a few more similar isolated examples). Do we just tell the relatives of those people, “Sorry, them’s the breaks?” Do you say, “Thank you for paying for my rights with your life?”
I’m honestly curious. How do you regard these incidents? Do you regard them as problematic? If not, why not? If so, do you have any thoughts about doing anything further to try to prevent such incidents in the future?
Not to speak for weirddave, but basically, yeah. Shit happens in life. People are victims of crime. Would it make these people feel any better if their relatives were killed by a single-shot shotgun? A death is tragic, regardless of the weapon used. But death happens. You can’t prevent murder by outlawing certain weapons.
I certainly regard these murders as problematic, but I regard all murders as problematic. These murders are not any more problematic than murders inflicted with other weapons.
I also believe we should do something to prevent such incidents in the future. Banning certain types of guns because of what they look like (and that is all an assault weapon ban does) will do nothing. Banning guns in general will do nothing to stop murders. I don’t think we should waste law enforcement resources on useless gun bans.
I’d bet 99% of the population are confused about this point of “non-hunting” guns. People think the only legitimate reason someone should own a gun is for hunting. The truth is the only reason given in the Constitution is keeping power with the people and not the government. Thats why it is so infuriating when gun bans are sold to the citizenry by saying we can ban the ( fill in the blank ) because it could never be used to hunt!
Sure, but the thing is, in these modern times, having guns (even assault weapons) is fairly useless in fighting the government. How do you intend to take on an F18? How about artillery? How about an armoured vehicle or a tank? Hell, how about a fully-equipped, fully-trained Ranger?
The original intent of having an armed populace (which is indeed the one you listed) is irretrievably gone, and in the meantime, all the guns really do is help non-governmental types kill other non-governmental types.
As we are seeing in Iraq, some men with decent guns and a little technical know-how can do a lot to harass a modern army.
BS. Guns are used for a lot of things besides people killing people. For example, I thoroughly enjoy target shooting. Others enjoy hunting. Many enjoy the aesthetics of firearms and collect them for that reason. There are many reasons to own a gun besides the desire to kill another person.
Realistically, “fighting the government” is not a matter of annihilating the government’s forces. It is a matter of making territory ungovernable until the government throws in the towel. You have been watching the news from Iraq, right?
As it happens, there was another recent case where somebody suggested trimming back a constitutional right just a little, in the name of curtailing terrorism. It seems to have ruined his career, too… to the applause of the Dopers.
Care to present a comparison-and-contrast exercise?
I’ll try to respond in anger. I think it was fairly clear that I referred only to the ““non-hunting” guns” of which Tiamatpuppy, and indeed, I have no problem whatsoever with hunting. Quite the opposite, really.
I would suggest that a major part of Iraq (or Vietnam, or Afghanistan, etc.) is that the insurgents are fighting a primarily foreign force and thus have the advantage of knowing the terrain (and having the advantage of territory, buildings, and people to support them). Such an advantage for insurgents, if it ever would have existed in an American civil war, would certainly not exist now.
No, the advantage to insurgents in the case of a US civil war is that the military would be fighting other Americans, and likely ones they to a degree sympathize with. You wouldn’t need to defend against F-18s, just against Billy Ray, who you went to school with. The government would fall before using US troops against any wide-spread US insurrection got very far.
Just for the hell of it – since I know it’ll convince no one – what are the killed/wounded stats between First world nations that allow general gun-ownership and those that don’t?
Say, between France, England, Spain and the US of “you’ll pry my gun from my cold dead fingers”?
Nope, the differences are in cultures. There has never existed a culture or expectation of private ownership of self-defense or militia weaponry in any of the countries you mentioned other than the US.
Please engage your brain instead of your backside.
One gun against the government is indeed useless; a thousand or a million is a different matter entirely. That F18 can’t fly if the pilot’s been killed. Even with a pilot, it can’t fly if the fuel truck’s been hijacked. Etc. Think of the French Resistance in WW2. Think of Iraq.
Remember the Rodney King riots? Remember how a group of shopkeepers saved their shops from being looted by banding together and using their firearms?
Might as well kill two birds with one Dragon’s Breath round. Zip on down to Figure 1 the US government’s report on firearm related deaths of children: “The homicide rate for children in the United States was five times higher than that for children in the other 25 countries combined (2.57 per 100,000 compared with 0.51)”. In particular, have a look at the homicide-by-gun rate for those pinkos in Kanukistan and compare it to the rate in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Go Team USA – you’re a world leader by a long shot. Rates of Homicide, Suicide, and Firearm-Related Death Among Children -- 26 Industrialized Countries
Those are terrific! I was originally thinking of simple rescue flares, and had no idea that things such as Dragon’s Breath rounds existed. Those Dragon’s Breath rounds appear to be most excellent – no chance of having the round swatted back at you by your adversary, or landing past your adversary and thus chasing your adversary into you. And kids just love roasting marshmallows.
