CaptHadley wrote:

TriJets wrote:

SESGDL wrote:

I wish pro-gun Americans would just come out and say it, "The countless lives lost each year to gun violence are an acceptable cost for being able to own and operate guns in the way that America tolerates them." In the same way vehicle deaths are the cost of being able to conveniently drive a car. It's sad, but they're not going to give up their guns under any circumstances, so why not stop making a big deal of it when people are senselessly gunned down like they are in the US on a regular basis.

Why don't they stop acting like they care about all the innocent lives lost to guns, or at least admit they don't care as much as they would not being able to own a gun. Nothing's going to change, so sadly we must just accept it and move on. That's how America views life against the "right' to own a gun.

Jeremy

It really isn't that cut and dry. One tragedy several states away should not mean that people who had nothing to do with it forfeit their ability to protect themselves. When seconds count, the police are minutes (or longer) away. I've had personal experience with this....I was at work and my wife was home alone when an intruder broke into our house. She was armed and screamed that she had a gun and the intruder fled. Had he not fled, she would have shot him and I would have been 100% OK with that. Time from 911 call to first officer showing up at our door was slightly over 15 minutes-this is in a mixed urban/suburban area. That's a long time for her to be alone without protection. So, as much as I feel for the families in Michigan, I'm always going to be against any kind of gun control that makes it harder to law-abiding citizens to own firearms.

How do you know she would have shot him? What would have happened if there was more than one intruder? What happens if she shoots and misses, the bullet goes thru the window and strikes a child riding their bike? What if the intruders are armed?

johns624 wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

TriJets wrote:

It really isn't that cut and dry. One tragedy several states away should not mean that people who had nothing to do with it forfeit their ability to protect themselves. When seconds count, the police are minutes (or longer) away. I've had personal experience with this....I was at work and my wife was home alone when an intruder broke into our house. She was armed and screamed that she had a gun and the intruder fled. Had he not fled, she would have shot him and I would have been 100% OK with that. Time from 911 call to first officer showing up at our door was slightly over 15 minutes-this is in a mixed urban/suburban area. That's a long time for her to be alone without protection. So, as much as I feel for the families in Michigan, I'm always going to be against any kind of gun control that makes it harder to law-abiding citizens to own firearms.

How do you know she would have shot him? What would have happened if there was more than one intruder? What happens if she shoots and misses, the bullet goes thru the window and strikes a child riding their bike? What if the intruders are armed?

Sure are a lot of "what ifs" there. What if she didn't have a gun and they raped and murdered her?

Kent350787 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

SESGDL wrote:

I wish pro-gun Americans would just come out and say it, "The countless lives lost each year to gun violence are an acceptable cost for being able to own and operate guns in the way that America tolerates them." In the same way vehicle deaths are the cost of being able to conveniently drive a car. It's sad, but they're not going to give up their guns under any circumstances, so why not stop making a big deal of it when people are senselessly gunned down like they are in the US on a regular basis.

Why don't they stop acting like they care about all the innocent lives lost to guns, or at least admit they don't care as much as they would not being able to own a gun. Nothing's going to change, so sadly we must just accept it and move on. That's how America views life against the "right' to own a gun.

Jeremy

It really isn't that cut and dry. One tragedy several states away should not mean that people who had nothing to do with it forfeit their ability to protect themselves. When seconds count, the police are minutes (or longer) away. I've had personal experience with this....I was at work and my wife was home alone when an intruder broke into our house. She was armed and screamed that she had a gun and the intruder fled. Had he not fled, she would have shot him and I would have been 100% OK with that. Time from 911 call to first officer showing up at our door was slightly over 15 minutes-this is in a mixed urban/suburban area. That's a long time for her to be alone without protection. So, as much as I feel for the families in Michigan, I'm always going to be against any kind of gun control that makes it harder to law-abiding citizens to own firearms.

To someone outside the USA (but with family in the US) this is good example of the cognitive dissonance around gun control measures.

Is there any reputable evidence around the use of guns for self defence in the US? I assume the number is very high and the US is an extremely dangerous place, given that this seems to be a ket part of the ongoing argument aginst reducing the use of guns in the US.

To those of us outside the US, the US gun homicide rate and number of mass shootings is unfathomably high.

CaptHadley wrote:

TriJets wrote:

SESGDL wrote:

I wish pro-gun Americans would just come out and say it, "The countless lives lost each year to gun violence are an acceptable cost for being able to own and operate guns in the way that America tolerates them." In the same way vehicle deaths are the cost of being able to conveniently drive a car. It's sad, but they're not going to give up their guns under any circumstances, so why not stop making a big deal of it when people are senselessly gunned down like they are in the US on a regular basis.

Why don't they stop acting like they care about all the innocent lives lost to guns, or at least admit they don't care as much as they would not being able to own a gun. Nothing's going to change, so sadly we must just accept it and move on. That's how America views life against the "right' to own a gun.

Jeremy

It really isn't that cut and dry. One tragedy several states away should not mean that people who had nothing to do with it forfeit their ability to protect themselves. When seconds count, the police are minutes (or longer) away. I've had personal experience with this....I was at work and my wife was home alone when an intruder broke into our house. She was armed and screamed that she had a gun and the intruder fled. Had he not fled, she would have shot him and I would have been 100% OK with that. Time from 911 call to first officer showing up at our door was slightly over 15 minutes-this is in a mixed urban/suburban area. That's a long time for her to be alone without protection. So, as much as I feel for the families in Michigan, I'm always going to be against any kind of gun control that makes it harder to law-abiding citizens to own firearms.

How do you know she would have shot him? What would have happened if there was more than one intruder? What happens if she shoots and misses, the bullet goes thru the window and strikes a child riding their bike? What if the intruders are armed?

CaptHadley wrote:

johns624 wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

How do you know she would have shot him? What would have happened if there was more than one intruder? What happens if she shoots and misses, the bullet goes thru the window and strikes a child riding their bike? What if the intruders are armed?

Sure are a lot of "what ifs" there. What if she didn't have a gun and they raped and murdered her?

Yup, quite a lot of “if’s”. Makes owning a firearm not a surefire advantage huh.

TriJets wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

TriJets wrote:

It really isn't that cut and dry. One tragedy several states away should not mean that people who had nothing to do with it forfeit their ability to protect themselves. When seconds count, the police are minutes (or longer) away. I've had personal experience with this....I was at work and my wife was home alone when an intruder broke into our house. She was armed and screamed that she had a gun and the intruder fled. Had he not fled, she would have shot him and I would have been 100% OK with that. Time from 911 call to first officer showing up at our door was slightly over 15 minutes-this is in a mixed urban/suburban area. That's a long time for her to be alone without protection. So, as much as I feel for the families in Michigan, I'm always going to be against any kind of gun control that makes it harder to law-abiding citizens to own firearms.

How do you know she would have shot him? What would have happened if there was more than one intruder? What happens if she shoots and misses, the bullet goes thru the window and strikes a child riding their bike? What if the intruders are armed?

I know she would have shot him because she's a good shot and she told me she would have shot him afterwards. This was very early in the morning (0400) so no kids riding bikes. If the intruders are armed then the second one through the door has a decision to make after he sees the first one go down. Either way, her odds are better with the ability to defend herself than without.

CaptHadley wrote:

TriJets wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

How do you know she would have shot him? What would have happened if there was more than one intruder? What happens if she shoots and misses, the bullet goes thru the window and strikes a child riding their bike? What if the intruders are armed?

I know she would have shot him because she's a good shot and she told me she would have shot him afterwards. This was very early in the morning (0400) so no kids riding bikes. If the intruders are armed then the second one through the door has a decision to make after he sees the first one go down. Either way, her odds are better with the ability to defend herself than without.

So what if the intruder is a better shot? What if the second intruder comes in from a different area. Let me guess, your wife would have been Doc Holliday. And how do you know who’s out and about at 0400 hrs. Maybe somebody walking their dog before work or jogging before work. And from the few seconds that the intruder(s) entered the home your wife had ample time to unlock the gun from the case or unlock the trigger lock? Cause there’s no way the gun was not secured and not accessible, right?

TriJets wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

TriJets wrote:

I know she would have shot him because she's a good shot and she told me she would have shot him afterwards. This was very early in the morning (0400) so no kids riding bikes. If the intruders are armed then the second one through the door has a decision to make after he sees the first one go down. Either way, her odds are better with the ability to defend herself than without.

So what if the intruder is a better shot? What if the second intruder comes in from a different area. Let me guess, your wife would have been Doc Holliday. And how do you know who’s out and about at 0400 hrs. Maybe somebody walking their dog before work or jogging before work. And from the few seconds that the intruder(s) entered the home your wife had ample time to unlock the gun from the case or unlock the trigger lock? Cause there’s no way the gun was not secured and not accessible, right?

Our gun safe is biometric and opens in less than two seconds. Regardless, we don't need your permission to own firearms and I could not care less if you don't approve. You weren't there that night (at least, I certainly hope not). You don't get to tell me how to care for my loved ones. If you don't trust yourself with a weapon, you don't have to buy one.

seb146 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

So what if the intruder is a better shot? What if the second intruder comes in from a different area. Let me guess, your wife would have been Doc Holliday. And how do you know who’s out and about at 0400 hrs. Maybe somebody walking their dog before work or jogging before work. And from the few seconds that the intruder(s) entered the home your wife had ample time to unlock the gun from the case or unlock the trigger lock? Cause there’s no way the gun was not secured and not accessible, right?

Our gun safe is biometric and opens in less than two seconds. Regardless, we don't need your permission to own firearms and I could not care less if you don't approve. You weren't there that night (at least, I certainly hope not). You don't get to tell me how to care for my loved ones. If you don't trust yourself with a weapon, you don't have to buy one.

So why do those weapons need to leave your home other than service? Why do you need to own so many of them? One well placed shot and you are safe. Twenty different firearms are not needed. So, what well regulated militia do you belong to? Those words are also in the Second Amendment. Perhaps the Founding Fathers put those four words first for a reason?

seb146 wrote:

Why do you need to own so many of them? One well placed shot and you are safe. Twenty different firearms are not needed.

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why do you need to own so many of them? One well placed shot and you are safe. Twenty different firearms are not needed.

Guns are like golf clubs, different ones for different purposes.

CaptHadley wrote:

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Why do you need to own so many of them? One well placed shot and you are safe. Twenty different firearms are not needed.

Guns are like golf clubs, different ones for different purposes.

So what is the purpose of an AK-47? It’s not for hunting nor is it for target practice. I’ve shot one many times, their accuracy is nonexistent. And while we’re at it, the same for the AR-15, what are their purpose?

CaptHadley wrote:

So what is the purpose of an AK-47? It’s not for hunting nor is it for target practice. I’ve shot one many times, their accuracy is nonexistent. And while we’re at it, the same for the AR-15, what are their purpose?

seb146 wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Guns are like golf clubs, different ones for different purposes.

So what is the purpose of an AK-47? It’s not for hunting nor is it for target practice. I’ve shot one many times, their accuracy is nonexistent. And while we’re at it, the same for the AR-15, what are their purpose?

Samuel L. Jackson has a line in the movie "Jackie Brown" about this very subject. I can not quote it on a family site like this.

Fantastic movie, BTW. I am not a fan of Tarantino, but "Jackie Brown" is very well written and acted.

But, as we all know, no matter what, only 2A people are right. Literally no one else is right on this subject. Because "all lives matter" and every life is sacred. Don't even bother, Capt. No matter how much you know about guns, they are right. Every time. Every school shooting, every child gunned down, I have seen that. Every time.

johns624 wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

So what is the purpose of an AK-47? It’s not for hunting nor is it for target practice. I’ve shot one many times, their accuracy is nonexistent. And while we’re at it, the same for the AR-15, what are their purpose?

I can tell that you've never shot competitively. Go to the National Matches. The whole shooting line is AR's. They are as accurate as most bolt action hunting rifles. In 2000, I had 20 hits on a military silhouette target in 50 seconds at 500yds, using peep sights, not a scope. My team beat several of the military teams. As far as my comment about guns being like golf clubs, I stand by it. It depends on your uses. A waterfowl shotgun. Upland shotgun. Trap shotgun. Long range varmint rifle. Deer-sized game rifle. Dangerous game rifle. Long range target rifle. Target pistol. House defensive pistol. Carry pistol. Too many people get hung up on guns for defense. The vast majority of guns sold and owned in this country don't have that as their purpose.

PHLspecial wrote:

I can't wait to hear the same old solutions again, invest in mental health treatment, arm teachers with ccw, and hire armed security to patrol schools. I'm dumbfounded at the latter to two solutions.

I awful for all who are involved. The trauma, shock, reliving through the same nightmare, processing this horrible event. I hope the victims and the families get as much support as they need.

TriJets wrote:

2. We have two weapons. One for each of us. That's not "so many of them".

Virtual737 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

2. We have two weapons. One for each of us. That's not "so many of them".

Is that in case you turn on eachother?

seb146 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

So what is the purpose of an AK-47? It’s not for hunting nor is it for target practice. I’ve shot one many times, their accuracy is nonexistent. And while we’re at it, the same for the AR-15, what are their purpose?

I can tell that you've never shot competitively. Go to the National Matches. The whole shooting line is AR's. They are as accurate as most bolt action hunting rifles. In 2000, I had 20 hits on a military silhouette target in 50 seconds at 500yds, using peep sights, not a scope. My team beat several of the military teams. As far as my comment about guns being like golf clubs, I stand by it. It depends on your uses. A waterfowl shotgun. Upland shotgun. Trap shotgun. Long range varmint rifle. Deer-sized game rifle. Dangerous game rifle. Long range target rifle. Target pistol. House defensive pistol. Carry pistol. Too many people get hung up on guns for defense. The vast majority of guns sold and owned in this country don't have that as their purpose.

Anything you say on the internet is true.

Guns are so easily available. Especially WMDs like ARs and AKs. These guns are built to take out as many lives as possible. And a certain sector of Americans celebrate this.

Try swinging all your golf clubs at once and expect a hole in one. See how that works out. Whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger and see how much you hit. Not really the same, is it? Could Greg Norman hit a hole in one on every hole swinging every club vs. a Navy Seal using an AR to take out Saddam in one shot? Not even a close analogy.

TWA772LR wrote:

PHLspecial wrote:

I can't wait to hear the same old solutions again, invest in mental health treatment, arm teachers with ccw, and hire armed security to patrol schools. I'm dumbfounded at the latter to two solutions.

I awful for all who are involved. The trauma, shock, reliving through the same nightmare, processing this horrible event. I hope the victims and the families get as much support as they need.

The school district I went to school in as a kid had a whole police department with a police room in my high school. Saw the school cops everyday, and they weren't just truant officers or the fat guy in the golf cart, they were legit uniformed police officers, armed with pistols, tasers, and asps. Not a perfect solution but not a bad one.

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I can tell that you've never shot competitively. Go to the National Matches. The whole shooting line is AR's. They are as accurate as most bolt action hunting rifles. In 2000, I had 20 hits on a military silhouette target in 50 seconds at 500yds, using peep sights, not a scope. My team beat several of the military teams. As far as my comment about guns being like golf clubs, I stand by it. It depends on your uses. A waterfowl shotgun. Upland shotgun. Trap shotgun. Long range varmint rifle. Deer-sized game rifle. Dangerous game rifle. Long range target rifle. Target pistol. House defensive pistol. Carry pistol. Too many people get hung up on guns for defense. The vast majority of guns sold and owned in this country don't have that as their purpose.

Anything you say on the internet is true.

Guns are so easily available. Especially WMDs like ARs and AKs. These guns are built to take out as many lives as possible. And a certain sector of Americans celebrate this.

Try swinging all your golf clubs at once and expect a hole in one. See how that works out. Whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger and see how much you hit. Not really the same, is it? Could Greg Norman hit a hole in one on every hole swinging every club vs. a Navy Seal using an AR to take out Saddam in one shot? Not even a close analogy.

If you "whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger" it will fire exactly one round.

Kiwirob wrote:

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Anything you say on the internet is true.

Guns are so easily available. Especially WMDs like ARs and AKs. These guns are built to take out as many lives as possible. And a certain sector of Americans celebrate this.

Try swinging all your golf clubs at once and expect a hole in one. See how that works out. Whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger and see how much you hit. Not really the same, is it? Could Greg Norman hit a hole in one on every hole swinging every club vs. a Navy Seal using an AR to take out Saddam in one shot? Not even a close analogy.

If you "whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger" it will fire exactly one round.

Unless it's fitted with a bumpstock.

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

TriJets wrote:

If you "whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger" it will fire exactly one round.

Unless it's fitted with a bumpstock.

Which is illegal and inaccurate, as well.

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Our gun safe is biometric and opens in less than two seconds. Regardless, we don't need your permission to own firearms and I could not care less if you don't approve. You weren't there that night (at least, I certainly hope not). You don't get to tell me how to care for my loved ones. If you don't trust yourself with a weapon, you don't have to buy one.

So why do those weapons need to leave your home other than service? Why do you need to own so many of them? One well placed shot and you are safe. Twenty different firearms are not needed. So, what well regulated militia do you belong to? Those words are also in the Second Amendment. Perhaps the Founding Fathers put those four words first for a reason?

You're making a lot of assumptions.

1. The weapons don't leave the home unless we're going to a range to practice.
2. We have two weapons. One for each of us. That's not "so many of them".
3. Real life isn't like the movies. People don't just fall down and die after one shot unless you shoot them in the head, and that is very difficult with a moving target. That's why everyone, including the police, is taught to shoot center mass (torso) and to shoot until the threat is eliminated, which usually takes quite a few shots.
4. I don't belong to a militia and don't need to. Just ask the SCOTUS.

johns624 wrote:

seb146 wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

So what is the purpose of an AK-47? It’s not for hunting nor is it for target practice. I’ve shot one many times, their accuracy is nonexistent. And while we’re at it, the same for the AR-15, what are their purpose?

Samuel L. Jackson has a line in the movie "Jackie Brown" about this very subject. I can not quote it on a family site like this.

Fantastic movie, BTW. I am not a fan of Tarantino, but "Jackie Brown" is very well written and acted.

But, as we all know, no matter what, only 2A people are right. Literally no one else is right on this subject. Because "all lives matter" and every life is sacred. Don't even bother, Capt. No matter how much you know about guns, they are right. Every time. Every school shooting, every child gunned down, I have seen that. Every time.

But it's okay to kill children with a truck, right? As long as they take a nice picture...

THS214 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

So why do those weapons need to leave your home other than service? Why do you need to own so many of them? One well placed shot and you are safe. Twenty different firearms are not needed. So, what well regulated militia do you belong to? Those words are also in the Second Amendment. Perhaps the Founding Fathers put those four words first for a reason?

You're making a lot of assumptions.

1. The weapons don't leave the home unless we're going to a range to practice.
2. We have two weapons. One for each of us. That's not "so many of them".
3. Real life isn't like the movies. People don't just fall down and die after one shot unless you shoot them in the head, and that is very difficult with a moving target. That's why everyone, including the police, is taught to shoot center mass (torso) and to shoot until the threat is eliminated, which usually takes quite a few shots.
4. I don't belong to a militia and don't need to. Just ask the SCOTUS.

Number 3 is the reason why US police kills so many without reason. In Finland they first talk then wrestle, if that is not enough then use a taser. If you need to shoot then aim at leg and the last choice is to shoot to kill. Sure it is about the situation what they use.

A terrorist with a knife two years ago was stopped with one well aimed shot at thigh.

So a well trained police is not taught to shoot torso if other options are available (and often is).

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I can tell that you've never shot competitively. Go to the National Matches. The whole shooting line is AR's. They are as accurate as most bolt action hunting rifles. In 2000, I had 20 hits on a military silhouette target in 50 seconds at 500yds, using peep sights, not a scope. My team beat several of the military teams. As far as my comment about guns being like golf clubs, I stand by it. It depends on your uses. A waterfowl shotgun. Upland shotgun. Trap shotgun. Long range varmint rifle. Deer-sized game rifle. Dangerous game rifle. Long range target rifle. Target pistol. House defensive pistol. Carry pistol. Too many people get hung up on guns for defense. The vast majority of guns sold and owned in this country don't have that as their purpose.

Anything you say on the internet is true.

Guns are so easily available. Especially WMDs like ARs and AKs. These guns are built to take out as many lives as possible. And a certain sector of Americans celebrate this.

Try swinging all your golf clubs at once and expect a hole in one. See how that works out. Whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger and see how much you hit. Not really the same, is it? Could Greg Norman hit a hole in one on every hole swinging every club vs. a Navy Seal using an AR to take out Saddam in one shot? Not even a close analogy.

If you "whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger" it will fire exactly one round.

THS214 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Anything you say on the internet is true.

Guns are so easily available. Especially WMDs like ARs and AKs. These guns are built to take out as many lives as possible. And a certain sector of Americans celebrate this.

Try swinging all your golf clubs at once and expect a hole in one. See how that works out. Whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger and see how much you hit. Not really the same, is it? Could Greg Norman hit a hole in one on every hole swinging every club vs. a Navy Seal using an AR to take out Saddam in one shot? Not even a close analogy.

If you "whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger" it will fire exactly one round.

How long does it take to shoot another one? How long to shoot a whole magazine (30 bullets)? I'll say 7-10 seconds. Change a magazine another 7 seconds. Try to tap your shooting finger and it happens fast. Actually shooting the whole magazine (automatic) takes 3 seconds but then you don't aim more than one target. Shooting with semiautomatic you can shoot in 30 seconds aimed shots with a 30 bullet magazine.

CaptHadley wrote:

TriJets wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

How do you know she would have shot him? What would have happened if there was more than one intruder? What happens if she shoots and misses, the bullet goes thru the window and strikes a child riding their bike? What if the intruders are armed?

I know she would have shot him because she's a good shot and she told me she would have shot him afterwards. This was very early in the morning (0400) so no kids riding bikes. If the intruders are armed then the second one through the door has a decision to make after he sees the first one go down. Either way, her odds are better with the ability to defend herself than without.

So what if the intruder is a better shot? What if the second intruder comes in from a different area. Let me guess, your wife would have been Doc Holliday. And how do you know who’s out and about at 0400 hrs. Maybe somebody walking their dog before work or jogging before work. And from the few seconds that the intruder(s) entered the home your wife had ample time to unlock the gun from the case or unlock the trigger lock? Cause there’s no way the gun was not secured and not accessible, right?

TriJets wrote:

THS214 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

You're making a lot of assumptions.

1. The weapons don't leave the home unless we're going to a range to practice.
2. We have two weapons. One for each of us. That's not "so many of them".
3. Real life isn't like the movies. People don't just fall down and die after one shot unless you shoot them in the head, and that is very difficult with a moving target. That's why everyone, including the police, is taught to shoot center mass (torso) and to shoot until the threat is eliminated, which usually takes quite a few shots.
4. I don't belong to a militia and don't need to. Just ask the SCOTUS.

Number 3 is the reason why US police kills so many without reason. In Finland they first talk then wrestle, if that is not enough then use a taser. If you need to shoot then aim at leg and the last choice is to shoot to kill. Sure it is about the situation what they use.

A terrorist with a knife two years ago was stopped with one well aimed shot at thigh.

So a well trained police is not taught to shoot torso if other options are available (and often is).

Shooting for the thigh is dangerous for anyone around the suspect, as the leg is a much harder target to hit and you risk hitting a bystander or innocent victim instead. Also, the femoral artery runs through the thigh and a shot there can be lethal very quickly. Finally, police in the United States are accustomed to dealing with armed criminals....a shot to the leg is not going to stop a criminal with a gun from shooting a police officer.

seb146 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

CaptHadley wrote:

So what is the purpose of an AK-47? It’s not for hunting nor is it for target practice. I’ve shot one many times, their accuracy is nonexistent. And while we’re at it, the same for the AR-15, what are their purpose?

I can tell that you've never shot competitively. Go to the National Matches. The whole shooting line is AR's. They are as accurate as most bolt action hunting rifles. In 2000, I had 20 hits on a military silhouette target in 50 seconds at 500yds, using peep sights, not a scope. My team beat several of the military teams. As far as my comment about guns being like golf clubs, I stand by it. It depends on your uses. A waterfowl shotgun. Upland shotgun. Trap shotgun. Long range varmint rifle. Deer-sized game rifle. Dangerous game rifle. Long range target rifle. Target pistol. House defensive pistol. Carry pistol. Too many people get hung up on guns for defense. The vast majority of guns sold and owned in this country don't have that as their purpose.

Anything you say on the internet is true.

Guns are so easily available. Especially WMDs like ARs and AKs. These guns are built to take out as many lives as possible. And a certain sector of Americans celebrate this.

Try swinging all your golf clubs at once and expect a hole in one. See how that works out. Whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger and see how much you hit. Not really the same, is it? Could Greg Norman hit a hole in one on every hole swinging every club vs. a Navy Seal using an AR to take out Saddam in one shot? Not even a close analogy.

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

I can tell that you've never shot competitively. Go to the National Matches. The whole shooting line is AR's. They are as accurate as most bolt action hunting rifles. In 2000, I had 20 hits on a military silhouette target in 50 seconds at 500yds, using peep sights, not a scope. My team beat several of the military teams. As far as my comment about guns being like golf clubs, I stand by it. It depends on your uses. A waterfowl shotgun. Upland shotgun. Trap shotgun. Long range varmint rifle. Deer-sized game rifle. Dangerous game rifle. Long range target rifle. Target pistol. House defensive pistol. Carry pistol. Too many people get hung up on guns for defense. The vast majority of guns sold and owned in this country don't have that as their purpose.

Anything you say on the internet is true.

Guns are so easily available. Especially WMDs like ARs and AKs. These guns are built to take out as many lives as possible. And a certain sector of Americans celebrate this.

Try swinging all your golf clubs at once and expect a hole in one. See how that works out. Whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger and see how much you hit. Not really the same, is it? Could Greg Norman hit a hole in one on every hole swinging every club vs. a Navy Seal using an AR to take out Saddam in one shot? Not even a close analogy.

If you "whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger" it will fire exactly one round.

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

TriJets wrote:

If you "whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger" it will fire exactly one round.

Unless it's fitted with a bumpstock.

Which is illegal and inaccurate, as well.

THS214 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

THS214 wrote:

Number 3 is the reason why US police kills so many without reason. In Finland they first talk then wrestle, if that is not enough then use a taser. If you need to shoot then aim at leg and the last choice is to shoot to kill. Sure it is about the situation what they use.

A terrorist with a knife two years ago was stopped with one well aimed shot at thigh.

So a well trained police is not taught to shoot torso if other options are available (and often is).

Shooting for the thigh is dangerous for anyone around the suspect, as the leg is a much harder target to hit and you risk hitting a bystander or innocent victim instead. Also, the femoral artery runs through the thigh and a shot there can be lethal very quickly. Finally, police in the United States are accustomed to dealing with armed criminals....a shot to the leg is not going to stop a criminal with a gun from shooting a police officer.

Your last sentence is accurate but taking the risk of one shot hitting the femoral artery? That is a small risk compared to shooting torso until the other person falls down (full magazine?).

Are you saying that unloading the whole magazine at torso is not dangerous for anyone around the suspect? You know that shooting at thigh you aim downwards? Sure a miss can make a stray bullet but a lot less likely than shooting at torso. You seem to think that a Finnish police don't take bystanders into account? Let me tell you they are trained to do so before they shoot.

johns624 wrote:

THS214 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

If you "whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger" it will fire exactly one round.

How long does it take to shoot another one? How long to shoot a whole magazine (30 bullets)? I'll say 7-10 seconds. Change a magazine another 7 seconds. Try to tap your shooting finger and it happens fast. Actually shooting the whole magazine (automatic) takes 3 seconds but then you don't aim more than one target. Shooting with semiautomatic you can shoot in 30 seconds aimed shots with a 30 bullet magazine.

Since the shooter didn't use an Ar, or any other rifle for that matter, the point is moot.

bpatus297 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

seb146 wrote:

Anything you say on the internet is true.

Guns are so easily available. Especially WMDs like ARs and AKs. These guns are built to take out as many lives as possible. And a certain sector of Americans celebrate this.

Try swinging all your golf clubs at once and expect a hole in one. See how that works out. Whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger and see how much you hit. Not really the same, is it? Could Greg Norman hit a hole in one on every hole swinging every club vs. a Navy Seal using an AR to take out Saddam in one shot? Not even a close analogy.

If you "whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger" it will fire exactly one round.

Damn those silly little facts.

TriJets wrote:

THS214 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Shooting for the thigh is dangerous for anyone around the suspect, as the leg is a much harder target to hit and you risk hitting a bystander or innocent victim instead. Also, the femoral artery runs through the thigh and a shot there can be lethal very quickly. Finally, police in the United States are accustomed to dealing with armed criminals....a shot to the leg is not going to stop a criminal with a gun from shooting a police officer.

Your last sentence is accurate but taking the risk of one shot hitting the femoral artery? That is a small risk compared to shooting torso until the other person falls down (full magazine?).

Are you saying that unloading the whole magazine at torso is not dangerous for anyone around the suspect? You know that shooting at thigh you aim downwards? Sure a miss can make a stray bullet but a lot less likely than shooting at torso. You seem to think that a Finnish police don't take bystanders into account? Let me tell you they are trained to do so before they shoot.

I'm sure the police in Finland do a great job, but they also operate under different circumstances than police in the US do. Police Officers in the United States are shot or shot at fairly often so they don't have time to aim for a leg shot that has a very high chance of missing and that likely won't stop a gunman even if it hits.

THS214 wrote:

bpatus297 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

If you "whip out an AR-15 and hold down the trigger" it will fire exactly one round.

Damn those silly little facts.

And someone who wants to kill with that rifle is so stupid that doesn't no how to best use it?

NIKV69 wrote:

The problem is people that are against the 2A want all guns removed and that is just not gun control and not going to happen.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

I would think convicting the parents would have a sobering effect on the idiots raising kids.

johns624 wrote:

Everyone that I know thinks the father should be joining his son in prison.

THS214 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Kiwirob wrote:

Unless it's fitted with a bumpstock.

Which is illegal and inaccurate, as well.

You seem to think that those who want to do a massacre are stupid. Of course 95 % of them know how to use those weapons the best way.

Kiwirob wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

PHLspecial wrote:

I can't wait to hear the same old solutions again, invest in mental health treatment, arm teachers with ccw, and hire armed security to patrol schools. I'm dumbfounded at the latter to two solutions.

I awful for all who are involved. The trauma, shock, reliving through the same nightmare, processing this horrible event. I hope the victims and the families get as much support as they need.

The school district I went to school in as a kid had a whole police department with a police room in my high school. Saw the school cops everyday, and they weren't just truant officers or the fat guy in the golf cart, they were legit uniformed police officers, armed with pistols, tasers, and asps. Not a perfect solution but not a bad one.

The sad thing is no school should need that kind of protection for it's students. It should not be an acceptable norm in any developed society.

johns624 wrote:

THS214 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

Which is illegal and inaccurate, as well.

You seem to think that those who want to do a massacre are stupid. Of course 95 % of them know how to use those weapons the best way.

Got a cite for your 95% claim, or is it just made up BS? Yes, I do believe that most mass shooters are stupid. They aren't that proficient at what they are doing, thank goodness.

THS214 wrote:

johns624 wrote:

THS214 wrote:

You seem to think that those who want to do a massacre are stupid. Of course 95 % of them know how to use those weapons the best way.

Got a cite for your 95% claim, or is it just made up BS? Yes, I do believe that most mass shooters are stupid. They aren't that proficient at what they are doing, thank goodness.

Mass shooters I agree. Mass murderers ... If they are stupid then how can they kill anyone?

TriJets wrote:

THS214 wrote:

TriJets wrote:

Shooting for the thigh is dangerous for anyone around the suspect, as the leg is a much harder target to hit and you risk hitting a bystander or innocent victim instead. Also, the femoral artery runs through the thigh and a shot there can be lethal very quickly. Finally, police in the United States are accustomed to dealing with armed criminals....a shot to the leg is not going to stop a criminal with a gun from shooting a police officer.

Your last sentence is accurate but taking the risk of one shot hitting the femoral artery? That is a small risk compared to shooting torso until the other person falls down (full magazine?).

Are you saying that unloading the whole magazine at torso is not dangerous for anyone around the suspect? You know that shooting at thigh you aim downwards? Sure a miss can make a stray bullet but a lot less likely than shooting at torso. You seem to think that a Finnish police don't take bystanders into account? Let me tell you they are trained to do so before they shoot.

I'm sure the police in Finland do a great job, but they also operate under different circumstances than police in the US do. Police Officers in the United States are shot or shot at fairly often so they don't have time to aim for a leg shot that has a very high chance of missing and that likely won't stop a gunman even if it hits.

seb146 wrote:

We can not restrict gun ownership in the United States.