[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

No, you’re not thinking. After all of the data that Sarah has provided you still refuse to accept the fact that pistols kill far more people than rifles and are the mass murderers weapon of choice. Now you’ll probably go off on some tangent about snipers. Don’t bother.

Here is what a thinking (intelligent) mass murderer asks himself, ( "do I want to be running around at ground level pointing and hitting people with a LOW ENERGY pistol bullet - while I expose myself to possible death from my potential targets, some of which have concealed carry permits and my targets know where I am located and can run in the opposite direction. Plus I have to run with them so I would not be accurate except when I stop running and I expose myself to shots or being hit by thrown objects"

"or do I pick an elevated position at least 70 yards of DISTANCE away from the intended targets - that has good cover like a ledge and use a high-powered RIFLE (even one with a bump stop) and maybe a front bipod and a scope for greater accuracy - and the bullet from the high powered RIFLE will hit the intended targets with a greater velocity and energy (than a PISTOL !!!!!!!!) - plus the elevated position and DISTANCE will change the SOUND of the shot, causing some of the targets (victims) to run in different directions (some to me) - thus ensuring greater success in my demented plan to eliminate the greatest number of human beings - and thus ensure that my friends on the dark web will herald me as the greatest mass murderer of my time !!!!!!!"

[Byte1]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Here is what a thinking (intelligent) mass murderer asks himself, ( "do I want to be running around at ground level pointing and hitting people with a LOW ENERGY pistol bullet - while I expose myself to possible death from my potential targets, some of which have concealed carry permits and my targets know where I am located and can run in the opposite direction. Plus I have to run with them so I would not be accurate except when I stop running and I expose myself to shots or being hit by thrown objects"

"or do I pick an elevated position at least 70 yards of DISTANCE away from the intended targets - that has good cover like a ledge and use a high-powered RIFLE (even one with a bump stop) and maybe a front bipod and a scope for greater accuracy - and the bullet from the high powered RIFLE will hit the intended targets with a greater velocity and energy (than a PISTOL !!!!!!!!) - plus the elevated position and DISTANCE will change the SOUND of the shot, causing some of the targets (victims) to run in different directions (some to me) - thus ensuring greater success in my demented plan to eliminate the greatest number of human beings - and thus ensure that my friends on the dark web will herald me as the greatest mass murderer of my time !!!!!!!"

Sorry, but I have already seen that movie on Netflix. And Whitman already did that in Texas 1966 with a bolt action rifle.
I must be mistaken but I though this thread was about having a SERIOUS discussion about Mass Murders.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

How did you arrive at the five round magazine limit? Just “thinking” again?

There’s no such thing as a silencer. But even if there were, what makes you think it would cut down on mass murder? I haven’t seen silencers or even sound suppressors listed as being common during mass shootings.

What’s a bump stop? I’ve heard you mention it several times. If you’re referring to a bump stock, they have already been banned.

You really need to start doing at least a minimal amount of research on this topic unless your only purpose here is to troll people.

You are correct........it IS a bump stock, my bad. And the LAST I heard was that it is still legal because it was taken OUT of the recent GUN REFORM BILL, which IMO was a watered-down JOKE. But, it shows how much the PEOPLE of the US DESIRE SOMETHING to be done about the INCREASING domestic TERROR attacks on the population with AR-15 type semi-automatic weapons. EVERYONE knows that there is a PROBLEM, but our leaders are "spinning their wheels" in desperate attempts at SOLUTIONS.

When in fact, they could just look to Australia, New Zealand, the UK, and ALL other 1st world countries (that love and protect their citizens) for the gun safety SOLUTIONS, that they have already implemented.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

I see. So, you only support the Bill of Rights a little bit. When you say, you can have these arms but you can't have those arms it is interfering with American Rights to keep and bear arms. Saying the military and law enforcement can have semi-automatic rifles, but not We The People, is absolutely infringing on the 2nd Amendment.

When people outsource their security, they will be disappointed. I prefer 15 seconds response time over 12 minutes response time. But, that's just me.

The 2 nd amendment was written SO vaguely that "a truck could be driven through it" and people can use it to justify WHATEVER point they want to make about GUNS. It is ambiguous (maybe intentionally) no one really knows. Plus the leaders of that time could NOT be mind readers and time travelers to be able to anticipate modern conditions where DOMESTIC TERRORISM is on the rise! People are talking like there needs to be a Domestic Terrorist Bill of Rights!

[Moderator]

I think we've far exceeded the point of ad nauseum. I think it's fair to say that this topic has been beat to death and there's nothing new being presented by either side. Time to give it a rest for awhile.

Moderator