Texas Church Shooting : Thread

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: soberbacchus

They are a common rifle.
Like a Winchester,but more so.
AND the shooters aren't trained to combat levels or a shotgun would be used at close range,its a more effective weapon in close.

@Cartrooper
Paddock used an AR-15 modified rifle in Vegas. Not just close range. I would also argue handguns in general are better for close range, depending on what distance you consider close range.

originally posted by: Thanatos0042


I'm not part of the NRA, but everything I've eve read said that the majority of mass murders are committed with semi-automatic handguns...

I'm assuming by you saying 'AR' you mean 'AR-15' because AR means ArmaLite...not Assault Rifle...Assault Rifles are fully automatic rifles, AR-15's aren't.

And only a very small number of murders have been committed with fully automatic weapons. Semi-automatic weapons are definitely the projectile weapon of choice for killing.

So seems to me you are asking why semi-automatic weapons are the choice for mass murderer's

Yes ArmaLite (note the manufacture's marketing use of the "AR" as a dual meaning)

In the past month we had Las Vegas (The biggest mass murder in US history)
Now Sutherland (the biggest mass murder in TX History)
Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton? (20 Children)
Pulse nightclub in Orlando? (49 killed),
Aurora Theater Shooting?

All of them Armalite "AR" weapons.

So no, I am not referring to simply semi-automatic weapons.

I am referring to specifically to the AR platform.

a reply to: soberbacchus


Sigh

Please see the following thread: www.abovetopsecret.com...

This explains everything anyone needs to know about our "mass shooting problem"

We have a heart disease problem, cancer problem, smoking problem, distracted driving problem, starvation problem, homelessness problem, poverty problem, and malnutrition problem.

We do not have a mass shooting problem.

I just watched press release on the shooter. There is a link between the shooter and the church. The mother in law attended that church. And they admitted there was conflict between him and his mother in law. Looks like this was a domestic shooting where he didnt care who else was killed.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: soberbacchus


Because the AR platform is very good at its job - being a lethal weapon that is moderately effective at stopping dangerous threats. People will always misuse things. Guns are designed for legal defense of self and state, not illegal murder.

For the record, AR's (long guns for that matter) are not the weapon of choice for most criminals.

My commentary was not about criminal activity, but rather mass-shootings. See my list above, all AR (ArmaLite) platform.

The obvious answer is that the AR Platform is the most easily modified for rapid fire, large capacity magazines and most effective for killing large numbers of people.

That is a an objective observation, not a moral or legal one, and an observation born out by increasing causalities in mass shootings all using the AR Platform.

Honest debate serves everyone.

Claiming the AR Platform is similar to a handgun or any long gun etc. is BS.

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: soberbacchus

We have a heart disease problem, cancer problem, smoking problem, distracted driving problem, starvation problem, homelessness problem, poverty problem, and malnutrition problem.

We do not have a mass shooting problem.

The residents of Newton, Las Vegas, Sutherland, Aurora et al. would disagree with you.

Your reasoning is a spin on "everyone dies of something so do nothing".

a reply to: JBurns

Im sorry but the argument that there is other stuff that kills more people is stupid. If that argument was used then we wouldnever find ways to save lives. Oh ignore that defective toy that kills children because more people die of cancer. Do you want to rethink about what you said? Simply go with its a right granted to us. Dont make stupid arguments.

a reply to: soberbacchus

I could almost agree to ban them but not because the magazine size orits more lethal its not. If anything its less lethal. Ill tske being shotby a 22 caliber over a 40 anyday. Now i would ban it for one reason. You dont need to practice dont have to be a good shot and can have no skill or experience and use it. A glock for example would kill more people but you have to be good at aiming and changing mags.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: JBurns

Im sorry but the argument that there is other stuff that kills more people is stupid. If that argument was used then we wouldnever find ways to save lives. Oh ignore that defective toy that kills children because more people die of cancer. Do you want to rethink about what you said? Simply go with its a right granted to us. Dont make stupid arguments.

I don't think the issue is that 2nd amendment advocates don't think anything should be done. We just wonder why the crusade against guns when, if your primary motive was saving lives, there are other things that take more lives. And the vast majority of gun deaths, honestly if that person couldn't get a gun do you think they wouldn't just kill some other way? So it's argueable whether you would actually save any lives at all, whereas other causes (such as car accidents that people often bring up) are by their very nature preventable.

Why are there more public mass shootings in the United States than in any other country in the world?
Published source:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: JBurns

Im sorry but the argument that there is other stuff that kills more people is stupid. If that argument was used then we wouldnever find ways to save lives. Oh ignore that defective toy that kills children because more people die of cancer. Do you want to rethink about what you said? Simply go with its a right granted to us. Dont make stupid arguments.

I don't think the issue is that 2nd amendment advocates don't think anything should be done. We just wonder why the crusade against guns when, if your primary motive was saving lives, there are other things that take more lives. And the vast majority of gun deaths, honestly if that person couldn't get a gun do you think they wouldn't just kill some other way? So it's argueable whether you would actually save any lives at all, whereas other causes (such as car accidents that people often bring up) are by their very nature preventable.

I agree he could have fire bombed the place and been more effective there seemed to be only two exits. But that doesnt mean that we shouldnt look at ways to prevent this in the future either. Im not going to be unreasonable about it either. If an idea even prevents one death its worth it. My idea would be to mke concealed carry easier just mine cost me about 500.00 . But i was required to take safety course 200.00 paid by me and registration 300.00

originally posted by: truthseeking
Why are there more public mass shootings in the United States than in any other country in the world?
Published source:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Because we have a massive crime and mental health problem. If guns were the cause, we would have the highest murder rate in the world because we have the most guns. We don't. Statistics 101. Fail.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: JBurns

Im sorry but the argument that there is other stuff that kills more people is stupid. If that argument was used then we wouldnever find ways to save lives. Oh ignore that defective toy that kills children because more people die of cancer. Do you want to rethink about what you said? Simply go with its a right granted to us. Dont make stupid arguments.

I don't think the issue is that 2nd amendment advocates don't think anything should be done. We just wonder why the crusade against guns when, if your primary motive was saving lives, there are other things that take more lives. And the vast majority of gun deaths, honestly if that person couldn't get a gun do you think they wouldn't just kill some other way? So it's argueable whether you would actually save any lives at all, whereas other causes (such as car accidents that people often bring up) are by their very nature preventable.

I agree he could have fire bombed the place and been more effective there seemed to be only two exits. But that doesnt mean that we shouldnt look at ways to prevent this in the future either. Im not going to be unreasonable about it either. If an idea even prevents one death its worth it. My idea would be to mke concealed carry easier just mine cost me about 500.00 . But i was required to take safety course 200.00 paid by me and registration 300.00

I agree we should look for sensible ways. I agree making it cheaper for people to attend courses and obtain a license would be great. The most vulnerable segment of our society to crime, the poor, are pretty much priced out of owning a gun. I disagree with the "if it saves one life" statement. It sounds great on the surface, but you get lots of crazy ideas using such a standard. By that standard, you must agree that banning cars should be done. It would completely upend our society, but it would undoubtedly save lives, so you can't oppose it right? Be careful with blanket statements like that.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: soberbacchus

No. I am pretty sure that we all acknowledge he shouldn't have been able to legally buy a gun, but we also say that the laws we had were improperly applied somewhere along the way. So adding new ones isn't going to fix an issue with properly applying the laws we have.

In the past month we had Las Vegas (The biggest mass murder in US history)
Now Sutherland (the biggest mass murder in TX History)
Sandy Hook Elementary in Newton? (20 Children) San Bernadino? Pulse nightclub in Orlando? (49 killed), Aurora Theater Shooting?

Not calling for a ban, but can anyone of the NRA crowd offer an explanation as to why ARs are the weapon of choice for mass murderers?

NRA crowd? You don't have to be an NRA affiliate or a member to answer this question. Hopefully, you're not already biased going into the question.

I am pro 2nd Amendment. I own multiple guns. I am anti-NRA, they lobby for gun manufacturers, not American citizens.
I am pro-stricter regulation and background checks (Who is able to purchase guns). I am against gun bans.


That is my Bias.


I asked the "NRA Crowd" because I wanted to see who might be honest and discuss the specific qualities of the AR Platform vs. Glock for example.

The AR platform ahs been used in Newton, Aurora, Las Vegas, Texas, Orlando and other recent mass shootings.

There is a logical reason for that.

You gave an honest answer below.

I can only speculate on why they may be the weapon of choice.

For one, the clip: The clips for ar-15's can range all the way up to 100 rounds. That's a lotta ammo before needing to change clips.

For two, the rounds themselves: A typical load for the AR is .223 (22 caliber) or 5.56mm (the original M-16 round introduced in the 1950's). They are lightweight, fast and flat shooting...if you're unfamiliar with what I mean by flat shooting, to shoot flat means to not have a ballistic drop-off the further the bullet travels...yet susceptible to wind and atmospheric conditions more so than a heavier round.

For three, the recoil: An AR's recoil is significantly less than say, for instance, an AK for a lot of reasons, the least of which not being less gunpowder in the casing of the round.

For four, as someone mentioned it looks scary or very military: Part of terrorism is, in fact, creating a sense of dread.

For five, maintenance: AR's are very easy to maintain, easy to break down, and rarely falter...especially if you've been in the service...getting at those delta rings becomes second nature.


Those would be a few reasons I could speculate on.

a reply to: face23785

Well you realize they are working really hard to take drivers out of the equation. Cars will all ready break if you dont the next step is self driving cars. And yes gun law enforcement can work though everyone has to be on the same page. For example the airforce cant forget to notify the feds. A waiting period great idea id extend it from 3 to 7. Getting rid of loop holes to prevent background checks. You can go to a gun show with a crappy pistol that wont fire and walk away with an ar15. Ii dont think trades should be allowed without checks.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: face23785

Well you realize they are working really hard to take drivers out of the equation. Cars will all ready break if you dont the next step is self driving cars. And yes gun law enforcement can work though everyone has to be on the same page. For example the airforce cant forget to notify the feds. A waiting period great idea id extend it from 3 to 7. Getting rid of loop holes to prevent background checks. You can go to a gun show with a crappy pistol that wont fire and walk away with an ar15. Ii dont think trades should be allowed without checks.

Yeah I am completely on board with the driverless cars. Even if the computer glitches now and then and we kill a few hundred people a year, that's still a much better safety record than we have driving ourselves. But until they perfect that, cars should be banned. If it saves one life...

a reply to: dragonridr

I also have to take issue with the waiting periods. Can you realistically imagine a scenario where a guy decides to kill his girlfriend, and after 3 days he still wants to kill her, but after 7 days he has changed his mind? C'mon man...

1/3 of murders in the US are committed without guns. Guns are a go-to, for sure. But if people can't get a gun they just use something else. Nobody makes the decision to kill because they have a gun or they can get a gun. They make the decision to kill for other reasons, and what they use is largely incidental. It's just an easy bogeyman for people to focus on because the actual underlying issues are much more dark and complex.

a reply to: face23785

A big mental health problem? Why doesn't the US have the highest rate of mass run-overs via vehicles? Or mass stabbings?
On one hand you admit that the US is full of insane people, but on the other hand you twist the fact that these insane people have very easy access to extremely effective mass - killing devices; by saying that 'not enough of them are using guns to kill, considering the fact we have gazillions of guns'?
That is simply illogical and a self - destructive way of thinking. If the majority of Americans share your twisted thought process, no wonder the US suffers the way that it does.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: dragonridr

I also have to take issue with the waiting periods. Can you realistically imagine a scenario where a guy decides to kill his girlfriend, and after 3 days he still wants to kill her, but after 7 days he has changed his mind? C'mon man...

1/3 of murders in the US are committed without guns. Guns are a go-to, for sure. But if people can't get a gun they just use something else. Nobody makes the decision to kill because they have a gun or they can get a gun. They make the decision to kill for other reasons, and what they use is largely incidental. It's just an easy bogeyman for people to focus on because the actual underlying issues are much more dark and complex.

OK you may nor be aware of this but if the FBI doesn't get back to the gun dealer in 3 days he's legally allowed to sell it to you. I think that needs to be extended to 7. Has nothing to do with a cooling off period that would be the first two days.

One more thing reasonable and fair gun laws do make a difference. Nobody has to lose because we get rid of loop holes. I'd add one more that would make people think if your caught selling a firearm. I'd add if you still have the gun registered to you and the person you sell it to uses it in a crime 90 days.

It takes nothing to change the registration I've done it several times.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: face23785

Well you realize they are working really hard to take drivers out of the equation. Cars will all ready break if you dont the next step is self driving cars. And yes gun law enforcement can work though everyone has to be on the same page. For example the airforce cant forget to notify the feds. A waiting period great idea id extend it from 3 to 7. Getting rid of loop holes to prevent background checks. You can go to a gun show with a crappy pistol that wont fire and walk away with an ar15. Ii dont think trades should be allowed without checks.

But until they perfect that, cars should be banned. If it saves one life...

That is a simple binary fallacy.
Either we prevent all deaths or prevent none.

Also:
Cars as guns? Seat belts? Drivers licenses? Safety testing and standards? Speed Limits? Stop lights? Traffic laws?
We regulate cars and who can drive and how they drive. We even test drivers.

originally posted by: soberbacchus

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: face23785

Well you realize they are working really hard to take drivers out of the equation. Cars will all ready break if you dont the next step is self driving cars. And yes gun law enforcement can work though everyone has to be on the same page. For example the airforce cant forget to notify the feds. A waiting period great idea id extend it from 3 to 7. Getting rid of loop holes to prevent background checks. You can go to a gun show with a crappy pistol that wont fire and walk away with an ar15. Ii dont think trades should be allowed without checks.

But until they perfect that, cars should be banned. If it saves one life...

That is a simple binary fallacy.
Either we prevent all deaths or prevent none.

Also:
Cars as guns? Seat belts? Drivers licenses? Safety testing and standards? Speed Limits? Stop lights? Traffic laws?
We regulate cars and who can drive and how they drive. We even test drivers.

Except all of that would turn a right into a privilege.

You don't actually sound very pro-2A to me. You sound like you're trying to have it both ways.