Terror attack at Orlando gay club

Quote: TigerWu

So do you think if AR-15's and similar rifles such as the Sig Sauer that Mateen used had been banned, and he went to the gun store to buy a rifle, and because he couldn't get a Sig he got, say, a Winchester 30/30 instead, 49 people would still have died and 53 others injured?

Yes, I believe if he walked into a gun store and bought a 7 round pump action shot gun (instead of his Sig) along with his Glock 17, the carnage would be equally as bad. Why do you think an AR 15/Sig automatic rifle with 30 round magazines is so much more deadly than a shot gun and a semi-automatic pistol with a 17 round capacity? In close quarters like Pulse, a pistol would be much easier to maneuver and shoot the injured as the result of the shot gun blasts being sprayed into the crowd upon entry.

Quote: Calder

If he only killed 12 people with the Winchester you'd be relieved? Or would you advocate the banning of 30/30s?

What I think is someone who is interested in killing as many people as he can will get the AR-15, if that is his weapon of choice. Making them illegal doesn't make them disappear from the face of the earth.

You're concerned about rate of fire, I'm concerned about terrorism.

Actually semi-automatic weapons are far from the most efficient way to rack up numbers. Many other devices and methods are far cheaper, much more available and even less obvious to acquire, set up and operate. But don't let the deniers be distracted from their meaningless yet unconstitutional agenda.

Quote: Calder

If he only killed 12 people with the Winchester you'd be relieved?

OF COURSE!! I mean.... better 12 than 49, right? In what universe is that not a better outcome? And honestly, I'm relieved that "only" 49 people died and he didn't have a fully automatic machine gun or rocket launcher and killed dozens more. Almost everyone is okay with THOSE types of weapons being incredibly hard to get... why not AR type weapons? Why do different people draw the line in different places?

Quote:

Or would you advocate the banning of 30/30s?

No. I don't think rifles like that should be banned. And honestly I'm on the fence about banning AR type weapons, too, I just have questions for people who are completely against it.

Quote:

What I think is someone who is interested in killing as many people as he can will get the AR-15, if that is his weapon of choice. Making them illegal doesn't make them disappear from the face of the earth.

You said "IF that is his weapon of choice." I agree completely -- if AR's were illegal and he wanted one, he's going to get one. But suppose he didn't care? He purchased everything legally. He even tried to buy body armor legally. And when he couldn't get that, he just said, "Screw it," and went without. He obviously didn't care about hitting the black market or stealing or doing anything illegal to further his scheme, which tells me that if, in theory, AR type weapons were banned, he wouldn't have gotten one, and gotten something far less powerful/destructive, and therefore saving lives.

Quote:

You're concerned about rate of fire, I'm concerned about terrorism.

Who says I'm not concerned about terrorism? And are you saying you're NOT concerned about rate of fire? Do you think fully automatic machine guns should be available to anyone passing a simple background check? If Mateen had gone into that gun store and was only able to get a simple hunting rifle, wouldn't that possibly have saved lives? Like I said, I'm not saying I 100% think AR type weapons should be banned.... just asking some questions because I'm on the fence about it....

Honestly, I don't think the type of weapon used is the biggest issue in this case -- not even remotely. Mateen was obviously mentally ill, and probably radicalized, and I think the FBI dropped the ball and should have intervened long before it got to where it did. Banning AR type weapons is not going to stop terrorism or mass murder. At best it might save a few lives. But I think we need stronger background checks before we start banning things.

Quote: Paradigm

In close quarters like Pulse, a pistol would be much easier to maneuver and shoot the injured as the result of the shot gun blasts being sprayed into the crowd upon entry.

That's a good point. A shotgun, especially a sawed off one, would do a lot of damage in a club atmosphere.

Quote: SanchoPanza

Actually semi-automatic weapons are far from the most efficient way to rack up numbers. Many other devices and methods are far cheaper, much more available and even less obvious to acquire, set up and operate.

Yeah, I would think that if he wanted to really rack up the body count, some homemade bombs would have been much more effective.

Quote:

But don't let the deniers be distracted from their meaningless yet unconstitutional agenda.

Honest question: Why do you, personally, think banning AR-15 type weapons is unconstitutional?

A sawed off shotgun loses its killing g power at a pretty short distance, where a rifle will penetrate a wall at 100 yards.

Quote: TigerWu

That's a good point. A shotgun, especially a sawed off one, would do a lot of damage in a club atmosphere.



Yeah, I would think that if he wanted to really rack up the body count, some homemade bombs would have been much more effective.



Honest question: Why do you, personally, think banning AR-15 type weapons is unconstitutional?

Because of decisions by our Congress and Supreme Court. Unless we should no longer be considering them.

Quote: TigerWu

Honest question: Why do you, personally, think banning AR-15 type weapons is unconstitutional?

The better question is why do people who want to ban AR 15's or other "assault weapons" think other semi-automatic weapons that aren't banned will cause less carnage in these mass shootings. The point is, that while I might vote for a ban on assault weapons, that isn't where we should be looking as the appropriate response to Orlando or Sandy Hook. So called "Assault Weapons" themselves aren't really the problem are they?

Quote: billryan

A sawed off shotgun loses its killing g power at a pretty short distance, where a rifle will penetrate a wall at 100 yards.

Refresh my memory, how close was the Orlando POS to his victims?

Quote: TigerWu

Yeah, I would think that if he wanted to really rack up the body count, some homemade bombs would have been much more effective.

Two bombs in the Boston marathon killed 3. Wounded 140.
They weren't exactly weak.

So, in a way he did better, if one is counting the dead.

Quote: Paradigm

Refresh my memory, how close was the Orlando POS to his victims?

No idea. Do you? I heard he shot thru the walls of the bathroom.
I'd think if he were close enough to use the shotgun effectively, he'd be close enough for someone to attempt to tackle him while reloading. It also takes much longer to reload a shotgun.

Let's say, If people think that because teens have proven they can often thwart alcohol and cigarette laws and get them anyway, we should just do away with restrictions on them using them -- well, I bow down to your logic.

By bowing down, I mean, I turn, bow down, and fart in your general direction.

Yes we should have bans on some things, even if they don't work all the time.

Quote: 777

Finally there is one thing I can agree with RS. :-)

Warning.

The standard was set some time ago, before you joined, that agreeing with someone who has said something derogatory about themselves is, in fact, an insult. I'm taking your intent to make a joke as mitigating ,but for you and everyone, a timely reminder warning. Thanks.

About denying guns to people who are on the No-Fly List or the Terrorist Watch List:

Exactly what are these lists, and what are the criteria and controls for putting people's names on these lists? -or for removing names from these lists?

Neither of these lists is available to the US public or to the media.

You could date the ex-GF of am FBI agent or of someone who works in a national security agency and they could put your name on these lists as revenge -and you would forever be denied the right to buy a gun. And there is no legal recourse - because there are no legal controls on these lists.

I am NOT a gun owner. But I would rather take my chances with terrorists than with an executive branch that can remove my rights for no reason at all and not even tell me about it or give me a chance for appeal.

Reasonable people might differ on this -but thats how I feel.

Quote: 777

Finally there is one thing I can agree with RS. :-)

Who are you?

Quote: gordonm888

About denying guns to people who are on the No-Fly List or the Terrorist Watch List:

Exactly what are these lists, and what are the criteria and controls for putting people's names on these lists? -or for removing names from these lists?

Neither of these lists is available to the US public or to the media.

You could date the ex-GF of am FBI agent or of someone who works in a national security agency and they could put your name on these lists as revenge -and you would forever be denied the right to buy a gun. And there is no legal recourse - because there are no legal controls on these lists.

I am NOT a gun owner. But I would rather take my chances with terrorists than with an executive branch that can remove my rights for no reason at all and not even tell me about it or give me a chance for appeal.

Reasonable people might differ on this -but thats how I feel.

We know in at least one case you're incorrect. Mateen was on the watch list while the FBI investigated him. He was taken back off when the investigation concluded. So you can get back off it.

I also knew a couple people who got on it thru mistaken identities. They both insisted the FBI fix it, and after an investigation, both were.

Quote: billryan

No idea. Do you?

I sure do....the club is listed as 4500 square feet or 70' X 65' and there were 300 people inside...I'll use the average and say 35 feet to the center of the club upon entry. That puts 150 people within 35 feet of the shooter. Ya think a shotgun is pretty effective between 5 and 35 feet? You didn't mention the semi auto Glock 17 he had with him...those are really easy to re-load per my previous video link...and they carry 17 rounds. You are living in fantasy land if you think the Sig was the difference maker in Orlando.

Quote: billryan

No idea. Do you? I heard he shot thru the walls of the bathroom.
I'd think if he were close enough to use the shotgun effectively, he'd be close enough for someone to attempt to tackle him while reloading. It also takes much longer to reload a shotgun.

There is no need to point and shot, and it doesn’t take lots of time to “spray” the machine gun into the densely populated crowd. Any criminal can just close his/her eyes and spray the machine gun in a very densely populated crowd and hit the intent targets.

The gunman is out numbered by several hundred to one. If there was absent of the fast & continuous spraying/flying bullets, it is most likely than not the gun man would have been tackled by the crowd.

Quote: rxwine

Two bombs in the Boston marathon killed 3. Wounded 140.
They weren't exactly weak.

So, in a way he did better, if one is counting the dead.

In this very crowded, close quarters and dark environment, a bomb(s) would/could cause much more damages both in property destructions and human casualties. Imagine the casualties from direct hits from bomb fragments, and then the aftermath casualties from smoke & fire, stampede … (how many entry/exit points are there at the Pulse?).

Quote: RS

Who are you?

I'm 777

The diagrams I've seen make the place look more rectangular than square, which is how most clubs are laid out. I've no idea where he was when he started shooting, or where he ended up.
If you've paid any attention to what I've posted, it's not the gun I have issue with. It's the magazine's. I read he had thirty round clips, which if combat wrapped gave him sixty rounds before having to reach into a pocket or bag.
Hunters don't need thirty round clips, nor fourteen rounds.

Quote: 777

In this very crowded, close quarters and dark environment, a bomb(s) would/could cause much more damages both in property destructions and human casualties. Imagine the casualties from direct hits from bomb fragments, and then the aftermath casualties from smoke & fire, stampede … (how many entry/exit points are there at the Pulse?).

Depending on where you are and the bomb is, standing people can actually provide some cover. Also depends on the size of the bomb.

I think part of the terror part was shooting people directly. Having most of them trapped, confused and so forth. He said he wanted to demonstrate the revenge of Islamic State. Waiting around to die is fairly terrifying.
It took them awhile to figure out it was just one guy.

Quote: beachbumbabs

Warning.

The standard was set some time ago, before you joined, that agreeing with someone who has said something derogatory about themselves is, in fact, an insult. I'm taking your intent to make a joke as mitigating ,but for you and everyone, a timely reminder warning. Thanks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/opinion/home-should-not-be-a-war-zone.html?_r=0

Gen. Stanley McChrystal is a former commander of U.S. and international forces in Afghanistan and of the Joint Special Operations Command, and a member of the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense.

A BATTLEFIELD on our soil.

That was my reaction on Sunday, like that of so many of my fellow Americans and fellow soldiers, as I began to learn about the horror that unfolded early that morning in Orlando, Fla., when a dangerous man opened fire in a nightclub with a high-powered, military-style rifle.

As Americans came together to celebrate the freedom that our great country affords and that our soldiers have given their lives to defend, 49 of them were murdered with a gun. Scores more were injured.

But that was just part of the bloodshed in our communities this past weekend, when at least 121 people across the country were fatally shot. The tragedy in Orlando wasn’t even the only mass shooting; in Roswell, N.M., a man was charged on Sunday with shooting his wife and their four children to death on Saturday. The oldest was 14; the youngest was 3.

In 2014, 33,599 Americans died from a gunshot wound. From 2001 to 2010, 119,246 Americans were murdered with guns, 18 times all American combat deaths in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

That is a national crisis. And as a combat veteran and proud American, I believe we need a national response to the gun violence that threatens so many of our communities.

Those of us who served in the military were trained in the effective and safe use of firearms. We were taught about the responsibility that comes with carrying a gun. As combat infantrymen and special operators, we received thousands of hours of firearms training.

In combat operations in places like Afghanistan, we often confronted the specter of dangerous people with powerful weapons who were a threat to their community and to our soldiers. Our aim was to quickly determine who in that community was a legitimate actor who could be trusted with a firearm and who was not.

Today, some of our politicians and the people who back them seem to promote a culture of gun ownership that does not conform with what I learned in the military.

Here at home, many of us are alarmed by the carnage. We are alarmed by loopholes that let felons and domestic abusers get hold of guns without a background check. We are alarmed that a known or suspected terrorist can go to a federally licensed firearms dealer where background checks are conducted, pass that background check, legally purchase a firearm and walk out the door.

Now veterans are speaking out. Last Friday, two days before the tragedy in Orlando, a new initiative, the Veterans Coalition for Common Sense, led by the Navy combat veteran Capt. Mark Kelly and his wife, the former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, was announced. Those of us serving on its advisory committee come from every branch of our military and virtually every rank. We are trained in the use of firearms, and many of us have served in combat. And we all think our country must do more to save lives from being cut short by gun violence.

As this national crisis continues to rage, I ask my fellow veterans — patriots who have worn the uniform, who took an oath to protect our Constitution and the Second Amendment, who served this great country — to add your voice to this growing call for change. America needs you.

In my life as a soldier and citizen, I have seen time and time again that inaction has dire consequences. In this case, one consequence of our leaders’ inaction is that felons, domestic abusers and suspected terrorists have easy access to firearms.

Some opponents of closing these gaps in our laws will continue to argue that dangerous people will obtain guns in our country no matter what, and therefore that taking steps to make it harder for them is fruitless. That is both poor logic and poor leadership.

Just as something as complex as a combat operation in a war zone meant that we could not eliminate every enemy combatant or prevent every American casualty, we cannot prevent every dangerous person from getting a gun, and we cannot prevent every gun tragedy. But wouldn’t preventing many of them be worth it? I believe it would.

We Americans are not a uniquely bloodthirsty people. We do not have more violent video games or movies than other countries. We do not have more dangerously mentally ill individuals than other countries. We are not unique in facing down the threat of global terrorism and active shooters.

But we have uniquely high rates of gun deaths and injuries that make us stand out in the worst of ways. Our communities should not feel like war zones. Our leaders can start by doing more to keep guns out of the hands of those who cannot be trusted to handle them responsibly. That must be our mission.

I'd be fine if they followed a general idea of making guns easier for good people to get them as long as they couple it with making it harder for bad people to get them. If you can't get support any other way, that would be better than nothing.

Quote: AxelWolf

What's he Chuck Connors or something? (yes i know that's not a 30/30 but you get the point)

There's a big difference in getting a 30/30 and some other guns that are made for one thing, killing lots of people.

And no, I didn't say that's the only thing you can do with them, but that's basically what some guns are designed for.

And those weapons are made exactly for that reason, to kill fast and plenty. Does anyone need that kind of weapon to take down a deer? Do we really need something like that for personal protection in a normal city?
Is there going to be a zombie attack that people need to mow 30 zombies down like real quick?

Quote: beachbumbabs

We know in at least one case you're incorrect. Mateen was on the watch list while the FBI investigated him. He was taken back off when the investigation concluded. So you can get back off it.

I also knew a couple people who got on it thru mistaken identities. They both insisted the FBI fix it, and after an investigation, both were.

Well, that's good to know, I learned something. Not too surprising since most FBI staff are good people trying to do the right thing. My point is that the processes and criteria for those lists were never established with the expectation that they would become a justification for taking away one of our constitutional rights. They don't meet the standard for "due process" IMO, and thus are more open to abuse than they should be.

Quote: 777

Quote: Paradigm

I always wonder about this argument (Face with his gun experience I am sure will be able to comment). A Glock 17 pistol has a 17 round magazine standard and look at this video to see how quickly someone trained can re-load: Speed Load. So you get this POS re-loading 3-4 times in what appears to be like 2 secs each and he is able to have fired off 51-68 rounds with a gun that will never be classified/banned as an "assault weapon".

I am all for background checks. closing loopholes to get around them, etc. But he wasn't on any list at the time that would have banned him from buying anything. Even after we institute No Fly/No Buy that is getting all the attention now and assume Congress miraculously passes a ban on "assault weapons", he still walks into a Pulse or any like crowded establishment with a pistol grip shot gun holding 7 rounds & a 6 round side saddle ammo clip....blows holes into the crowd with those first 13 rounds pretty darn quickly and then pulls out his Glock 17 and is capable of unloading another 50-70 rounds all in under 4 minutes...it is quickly a blood bath of epic proportions without an AR 15 even present.

I am not an assault weapon proponent and question our collective sanity making them available to the public. That said, I don't buy that the "No Fly/No Buy" and a ban on assault weapons is going to change the specifics of Orlando happening the day after both measures become law. I guess liberals could say they are steps in the right direction, but you haven't solved the problem by any stretch of the imagination, so now what? And conservatives will say that if you aren't solving the problem, why are you passing any new gun control legislation? I find myself leaning left on this issue, but still feel like even with both laws passing, nothing will have changed to stop Orlando happening again.

I think you are comparing apple and orange. In a control environment (no pressure, one target, no fear of resisters or victims' counter attack, and other favorable factors) for youTube viewing pleasure, one can theoretically fire many rounds accurately and quickly. But let’s be realistic, in the real world situation where there many targets, shooter panic/pressure mental state, shooter hiding/running, shooter looking out for other potential resisters, shooter defensive gesture, etc. it would be very difficult to fire that many shots and hit multiple targets with high degree of certainty.

It is true that no one gun legislation or any other legislation will solve all the problems. But at least sensible gun legislation can greatly minimize the frequency of tragedies and casualties if gun ownership is highly scrutinized and highly mechanized guns/weapons are not used.

They should just make it illegal to go into a crowded bar and murder people.

Quote: petroglyph

They should just make it illegal to go into a crowded bar and murder people.

Is that not now the case?

Guns are necessary to protect against democide. Any other reason pales in comparison.

I've waited a bit to learn about the shooter, and his wife, and his parents. From what I gather, the father has done some very anti-Western commentary as a News Reporter in Afghanistan. The shooter's "wife" supposedly divorced the Shooter after 4 months of marriage due to physical violence issues. As I have read more and more news sources, it appears the shooter was "socially maladjusted", with a lot of anger and hate issues. I find it interesting that the FBI had a sitdown with him on two occasions, and that the shooter was once employed as an armed Security Guard. That was after he got bounced from a College in Fla. I've come away with an opinion that the shooter was picked upon (bullied) by Social Media Contacts, and "got even". Extremeist Organizations have their way with such people. Its not about the gun, its the person. If this person did not have access to a gun, then he would have made an IED and used it. Thats how determined this person was.

JMHO

Quote: terapined

The guy was a US citizen born in the USA
He was crazy
Adam Lanza was crazy
After Newtown, conservatives shrugged their shoulders
How is this different from Newtown or the Colorado theater shootings
We live in a country where crazy people can get their hands on weapons of mass killing
Its going to happen again.

+100
But I think there is no way to legally define crazy to the extent that some Constitutional Rights are abridged.

Quote: TigerWu

Honest question: Why do you, personally, think banning AR-15 type weapons is unconstitutional?

In the District of Columbia v. Heller decision, the SCOTUS declared (in a 5-4 decision) that the 2nd amendment established an individual right to bear arm and that the right could legitimately be regulated.

"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited," Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion in the long history of gun control in District of Columbia v. Heller

Quote: SanchoPanza

Actually semi-automatic weapons are far from the most efficient way to rack up numbers. Many other devices and methods are far cheaper, much more available and even less obvious to acquire, set up and operate. But don't let the deniers be distracted from their meaningless yet unconstitutional agenda.

Quote: TigerWu

Honest question: Why do you, personally, think banning AR-15 type weapons is unconstitutional?

Quote: SanchoPanza

Because of decisions by our Congress and Supreme Court. Unless we should no longer be considering them.

See District of Columbia v. Heller decision.

If we don't like our Congress and Supreme Court actions on gun control, then yes we can start forming a militia and start a civil war to protect/defend our absolute & unlimited 2nd Amendment right.

"Downtown Orlando has no bottom. The entire city should be leveled. It is void of a single redeeming quality. It is a melting pot of 3rd world miscreants and ghetto thugs. It is void of culture. If you live down there you do it at your own risk and at your own peril." – Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Lewis (Now suspended from office for making that comment).

Quote: FleaStiff

"Downtown Orlando has no bottom. The entire city should be leveled. It is void of a single redeeming quality. It is a melting pot of 3rd world miscreants and ghetto thugs. It is void of culture. If you live down there you do it at your own risk and at your own peril." – Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Lewis (Now suspended from office for making that comment).

http://abcnews.go.com/US/florida-assistant-state-attorney-suspended-controversial-facebook-post/story?id=39954404

1st Amendment protects his right to speech as a private citizen. But as an officer of a government entity, this kind of comment is not protected by the 1st Amendment. I think a suspension is an appropriate penalty.

1st Amendment and 2nd Amendment do not give unlimited rights. These rights come with responsibilities.

I know Pat Robertson jumped the shark years (decades?) ago, but now I think he's officially lost his mind:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/week-god-61816

We are just one layer of bureaucracy away from utopia. If only we could get everyone to agree that more state power will totally make us safe.

Quote: FleaStiff

"Downtown Orlando has no bottom. The entire city should be leveled. It is void of a single redeeming quality. It is a melting pot of 3rd world miscreants and ghetto thugs. It is void of culture. If you live down there you do it at your own risk and at your own peril." – Assistant State Attorney Kenneth Lewis (Now suspended from office for making that comment).

He should have been suspended, of course...that is a no brainer.

The condition of the area has little to do with the fact that people were maimed and murdered by a maniac.

The statement does make me wonder how "bad" of an area it is and why it is that way. I'm thinking that it might not be a dishonest statement, just one that someone in has position should not make.

Quote: RonC

He should have been suspended, of course...that is a no brainer.

The condition of the area has little to do with the fact that people were maimed and murdered by a maniac.

The statement does make me wonder how "bad" of an area it is and why it is that way. I'm thinking that it might not be a dishonest statement, just one that someone in has position should not make.

It's that bad. It's been that bad for decades. You could use it, cautiously, in the daytime. Weird area of town, with many buildings making up the hospital complex, next to derelict buildings and strange businesses, tired apartments, bad parking. Kind of stretches south from there for a bit, with true downtown just north of there and a very complicated set of highway overpasses in the area that were built on top of it without regard to how it flowed before the traffic changes.

Quote: beachbumbabs

It's that bad. It's been that bad for decades. You could use it, cautiously, in the daytime. Weird area of town, with many buildings making up the hospital complex, next to derelict buildings and strange businesses, tired apartments, bad parking. Kind of stretches south from there for a bit, with true downtown just north of there and a very complicated set of highway overpasses in the area that were built on top of it without regard to how it flowed before the traffic changes.

I grew up in Florida but never spent any real time in Orlando...just near it (Disney, the airport, the outskirts of town, etc.). I know my home town (Melbourne) has some bad areas but I never really saw that much of them, we just stayed away, except when I went on a ride along with Sheriff's Department. That was an eye opener, to say the least. Much the same as many cities, some are worse than others, but I also have spent time inside "8 Mile" in Detroit and got lost a time or too in DC and Baltimore areas I would have rather not been in...

Quote: RogerKint

We are just one layer of bureaucracy away from utopia. If only we could get everyone to agree that more state power will totally make us safe.

The Department of Total Control for the Betterment of Everyone

Quote: 777

...we can start forming a militia...

You assume we haven't already?

Some of the comments here are astoundingly ignorant, and I mean the dictionary definition of ignorance, not the colloquial insult. It's like watching a Catholic priest teach a course on sex ed. Paradigm's on track. He gets it. Others? Come with me for a sec...

I own one of those fully automatic do-jobbers. It began its life as a perfectly legal Del-ton Echo, and with a few bills and a little know-how, it now fires 800rds p/min. That's a bit more than a typical mil-spec rifle that does ~600rds p/min, so let's stay with the mil-spec as the math is easier.

Even I can figure out that 600rds p/min is 10 a sec. PRRRRRAT! There's your ten. It's no MA-Deuce where you can count each individual CHOW-CHOW-CHOW, it's too fast. PRRRRRAT!, and 10 are down range. To YOU, this is "more deadly". But use your head, man.

My toy is is 5.56. To me, this ain't much more than my .22 plinker. I'd teach my 7yr old son on this rifle, it is positively gentle. But regardless of its complete lack of kick, and my relatively stout platform of self, I can't hold it on target in full auto. Just like every single auto out there, it tracks up and to the right (right handed). If I put those ten rounds into the line outside of First Niagara before a Sabres game, I am, at an absolute max, hitting 2 people. And I'm damn good with a rifle. I flick that tab and go back to one round per pull, those same ten rounds are hitting all 10.

A "machine gun" is not the "most deadly weapon". It's purpose is to lay down fire to allow units to advance. You're at A, need to get to B, but there's fire between the two points. So you rip out a SAW and lay down fire. The enemy necessarily ducks, which necessarily stops them from firing, allowing your units to proceed. And once in position, all the SAWs go back into semi-auto or burst fire because that's what you kill people with.

Of all the guns out there, I would not say a "machine gun" would be my first choice to face. However, I damn sure would rather be shot at by one of those than a whole host of perfectly legal firearms because of what they are. You think they're scary because you've gotten all your gun knowledge from Michael Bay. In reality and practical use, they are catastrophically inefficient. I think it was rxwine that stated he wanted all guns to weigh 80lbs or some such, the idea being that they should be harder to wield and therefore less likely to amass heavy casualties. Well, the machine gun does just that. It is complete garbage, and come the revolution, mine would never see combat. It's complete junk. It's only purpose is to make noise, burn my money, and stand as a big F#$% You to the governor of the People's Republic. As a useful firearm? Lol, my 5rd Remington 870 is a hundred times more deadly. And if you think I can't find no 50rd drum for my boom stick, I'll have to ask you to stop. I've laughed far too much for one day.

And this is just on the topic of how a gun works. We haven't even broached how people work. You want more laws? As Sancho pointed out, it's already against the law to kill people. I'll point out it's also against the law to travel in a vehicle with that type of weapon loaded, ditto for having it on the street, ditto for taking it into a place that serves alcohol. All of your papers with all of your words completely covered 100+ gay revelers that night. How'd that work out for you and them? Oh, but you want a full ban? Well, my auto is so far beyond legal I haven't even figured out how many charges I'd face if caught. Between the full auto capabilities and all the 30rd mags, that one device could put me away for the rest of my life. But I still got it, don't I? And I'm not even a "bad guy"! And when the SAFEAct got rammed in, I had no problems acquiring another M4 rifle and more 30rd mags for my sheriff buddy, even during the panic when everything gun was flying off the shelves. I think I've bought exactly one box of ammo since SAFEAct, because it's a righteous PITA. So I got a guy now. Makes em right in his basement. Ain't a single round in my house that I've acquired via background check.

There's 300mm privately owned firearms in this country, and more mags than you could possibly count. The only way you're getting the ban you want is by door to door confiscation. You want to send your brothers and sisters out knocking door to door? When there's a million of them and 30mm of us? You want to engage your police in a war with the American people? Have you not gotten your fill from the War on Drugs?

What you are calling for has already happened. There are myriad examples all over the country of its success. Prostitution, recreational drugs, prohibition, all "banned" by paper, every single one an abject failure. Yet you continue to clamor for more.

As your fellow citizen, I beg you to stop. You can opine that I'm just in it for myself and I won't be able to cope with my tiny penis without my .44, but you'd be wrong. You already passed your laws and I'm already ignoring them. One or ten more ain't gonna change my life, and even if you sent the SS to take them, well, I have guns. I don't care. I beg you to stop because you waste time, mind, and energy on a "fix" that does nothing. The best way to fight cancer is not newer poison or sharper knives, nor by "outlawing" cancer, it's best fought by prevention. It's best fought by attacking the source. That's where this battle needs to be fought. That's how you get a REAL fix. How come I never hear anything about that?

Change your way of thinking. Stop reacting with your heart and use your GD head. Banning guns is no more an answer than arming everyone is. The problem is not the result. The problem is the cause. Find it, and fix it.

Face, pay no attention to the black helicopter that will soon be circling above your house.

Who is calling for a total ban on every single type of firearm?

Quote: RogerKint

We are just one layer of bureaucracy away from utopia. If only we could get everyone to agree that more state power will totally make us safe.

Post of the year!

Quote: SanchoPanza

Is that not now the case?

I thought it might help those that think banning firearms the ridiculousness of their position.

If semi-auto guns are banned in America, then Americans can just go to Mexico and buy some of the guns shipped there through the US Attorney General Eric Holder from his "Fast and Furious" plan to disarm Mexican drug cartels.

It is idiocy to think banning large capacity magazines will stop mass killings. The same death count could have been achieved with two glocks, and a twelve gauge pump full of #4 buck. And just for a little flair, add a couple Molotav cocktails at the exits.

I wish these Hillary loving gun confiscators would quit getting their info from the msm, but alas, it is just too much effort to read.

Gay bars aren't as tough as they used to be. In the 60's or 70's every third patron was armed. If you went inside as a straight person, you could expect a fight. The gay bars were often packed with navy guys who were willing and able to fight.

Quote: RogerKint

We are just one layer of bureaucracy away from utopia. If only we could get everyone to agree that more state power will totally make us safe.

It's posts like these that make we had an "up" vote selection.

Up 59.95 Mr. Kent

"Only pigs can walk on two feet"

Quote: petroglyph

The gay bars were often packed with navy guys who were willing and able to fight.

Now they're packed with Marines!

Hey-yooooo....

Quote: TigerWu

Now they're packed with Marines!

Hey-yooooo....

Great. I don't follow the msm news, but the bars I frequented, at least someone would have beat the gunmen to death with a chair before he reloaded ten times.

I'm in AZ. I don't think you could find 103 random people that there weren't at least 3 guns?

Two five gallon cans of gas and a zippo lighter makes a hell of a terror weapon.

I don't believe it's the guns, its the society and the SSRI's. One dedicate psycho could go through the bar and "roofy" dozens of people. You can't just legislate the insane from insane acts, by taking away freedom from the legitimate owners of the country.

I think most of the mass shooters try to bring several guns. Only the seriously crazy ones bring one -- because they would bring more if they weren't crazy.

Okay, some gun owner tell me why you need to purchase more than one gun a year? And if you buy a second why the ATF shouldn't bury you up to your head in sand and put you under hot lights and grill you on that second purchase for 3 days while you drink your own piss for water.

A real reason would be life or death. If you lost your first gun before a year is up, you're too damn stupid to own one. Anything else is pure bullcrap of convenience.

Quote: rxwine

Okay, some gun owner tell me why you need to purchase more than one gun a year?

I got some junk mail from the NRA last year wanting me to join. They also had a sweepstakes you could enter where the grand prize was 40 different guns, which I thought was just an absurdly comical amount of guns to be giving away as one prize. I came this close to entering the contest, on the premise that if I won I would just sell the guns and make thousands and thousands of dollars. Then I changed my mind because I figured if I start corresponding with the NRA I'd get on all kinds of weird mailing lists and my wife would think I was crazy.

Quote: petroglyph

You can't just legislate the insane from insane acts, by taking away freedom from the legitimate owners of the country.

Devil's advocate: What freedom is being taking away by banning high-cap magazines/assault rifles/AR-15 type weapons? Is it simply the freedom to own that specific weapon? You already don't have the freedom to own lots of things...