[Biker Guy CJI]

Originally Posted by RVJim

Given your profile picture we know where your bias is at. No thanks not interested in engaging with an obviously biased original poster with some sort of agenda.

Then why did you? So you can feel good about yourself

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by Rich Iwaszko

Sounds like you are solving all the worlds issues. First, the forefathers had muskets. If they were around today they would not agree with the gun laws. Why does anyone need an ar/ak or multiple firing pistols except army and police. They don't!

Governors can solve these problems by putting a $25,000 tax on ar/ak and a $10,000 tax on multiple firing pistols. Combined with a background check. Age 21 and older

There are things you will never regulate so you use taxes to do that.

Also, women need to understand and follow birth control to lower abortion rates.

what other balloons can we float?

First, it would be unconstitutional to tax a Right. Secondly, read up on the Stamp Act of 1765 for a little background on how the people react to unfair taxation. It was pivotal in leading up to 1776.

Maybe we should do a $25,000 tax on electric cars because lithium mining is terrible. Maybe we should do a $25,000 tax on wind turbines because lots of birds die from those.
Maybe we should do a $25,000 tax on solar panels because they are wreaking havoc now in landfills.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

How these are being marketed would be interesting.

The one that the young boy in Uvalde used was marketed especially to young males. And there is BIG money for all the AR-15 style and AK-47 weapons' and accessories' advertisements because the profit margin is SO MUCH greater than for plain-Jane wooden-stock hunting rifles.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

None of it matters. It's a strawman, a red herring, a logical fallacy.

The "problem" has nothing to do with definitions of anything at all. The "problem" is that people who shouldn't have firearms, have them anyway, and are using them to do what firearms are built to do: kill. They're killing people, with devices that are intended to kill, that is their primary function, the thing they were created to do. And they're killing people with a device that they shouldn't be allowed to have.

Any device that's *primary* function is to kill, should require that you have proven capable and qualified, in every way, shape, and form, to accept the responsibility of having such a device. And that means background checks and licensing with actual tests for competency using the device.

The "problem" in this specific thread, is that it exists to deflect from the actual problem.

It seems when there is no substantive debate the response is It's not a real debate, It's a strawman, It's red herring.

Identifying the solution begins with people having knowledge on the topic at hand. Too many people have extremely emotional reactions to events they barely understand. To exacerbate the issue, they don't even try.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Not counting car bombs or pressure cooker bombs........ a blunt instrument like a hammer would not be a weapon of choice for a mass murderer - it would be more likely a spur of the moment of passion type of weapon of choice. Because bystanders would be more likely to quickly intervene against some killer swinging a hammer than a killer holding a firearm. The most effective firearm of choice would be a semi-auto rifle or one with a bump stop device attached.

.....Why is a semi-automatic rifle a more effective weapon of choice as opposed to handguns? The rifle gives a killer a greater separation distance from the crowd that he targeted. Thus giving the opportunity to gain the best position so as NOT to be easily counterattacked by Police or civilians. The shooter in the suburb of Chicago that dressed as a woman was at the top of a building and had a low wall in front of himself for protection. The Las Vegas shooter killed 60 people from the window of an elevated hotel building. He used rifles and a bump stop accessory.
.....Five or so people in a crowd could be killed by a demented person running through a crowd using a handgun or handguns, but it would be more likely that someone in the crowd could stop them than someone using a rifle from distance and a better position. A more simple way to look at the rifle vs pistol question - is that Army snipers use rifles, not pistols. A greater % of all murders may be perpetrated by pistols than rifles, but the AR-15 type rifle and the AK-47 are the weapons of choice for the DOMESTIC terrorist rifle. These rifles are the firearms that are causing the MOST FEAR AND APPREHENSION among children returning to school soon and what most comes to an adult's mind when they are inside a church or at a large public event. Basically, the TERROR component for those RIFLES is greater than for PISTOLS. The smartest course for America to do is to discontinue the sales of semi-auto rifles, remove those found by police during crimes, and do buybacks in a way similar to that done by Australia and many other countries that have reduced their mass murder events to near ZERO !

The Vegas shooting and Highland Park shooting are not average mass shootings. The Vegas shooting resulted in 473 casualties and the Highland shooting resulted in 55 casualties. The average mass shooting results in 10 casualties. The average mass shooting does not occur from a rooftop or the 32nd floor. The average mass shooting happens in a confined space with most mass shootings occurring in the home.

That is why 77% of mass shootings are done with a handgun. It doesn't make sense to use a semi-automatic rifle in a home, church, or nightclub. I would like to know how much planning goes into a mass murderer's intention. In my humble opinion the Greenwood Mall shooting was poorly planned. An AR-15 doesn't make sense in a mall, beginning with the food court. Let's look at the logistics. Let's assume he carried the AR under a trench coat and 10 mags loaded with 30 rounds each. That would give him 300 rounds with a total weight of 11 pounds for ammo and the rifle at 6.5 pounds for a total of nearly 18 pounds. That doesn't seem difficult other than being tricky to hide the AR.

A Glock 19 weighs 1.5 pounds. 9 magazines holding 33 rounds of 9mm weighs 8.25 pounds. That would be a total of 9.75 pounds, or roughly half the weight of an AR setup and easier to hide it all in a back pack. I would think this is all considered in the planning stage.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

In the Las Vegas shooting 60 people were killed. It was done basically with a rifle - the preferred weapon of choice by killers PLANNING to kill large numbers of unrelated people. That PRODUCES terror and has people running and panicking when they hear a car backfire and they are in a crowd. The large mass murder PLANNED events of DOMESTIC terrorists are what has people looking over their shoulders at sports events, concerts, and churches.

Pistols are more likely to be involved in UNPLANNED murders of fewer people than rifles.
........I am NOT suggesting confiscation. What I am suggesting is that at the present day DRAMATIC increased rate of mass murders, eventually, society will be forced to say, "no mas" and strike a BALANCE between the insatiable greed of the gun manufacturers and the rights of Americans to NOT be gunned down in public !

Approximately 6,000 people are murdered every year with a firearm. According to FBI of those 6,000 murders, 340 are done with rifles of ALL types. From 2007-2017, 173 people were killed by an AR style rifle. That is an average of 17.3 per year during that decade. The fact of the matter is AR style rifles are rarely used in murders of any kind.

Estimates are there are about 20 million AR's in the country, yet it is rare to be used in murder. The solution you are proposing is to deny millions of Americans their Constitutional right to own an AR while have a negligible effect on murders. That solution is not logical to me and unacceptable to law abiding citizens such as myself.

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

That is an older quote from an older time that was applicable when DOMESTIC terror was much less of a problem. And actually, most Police complain about the fact that they are OUTGUNNED by the bad guys. So today Mr. Cooper might agree that because of manufacturers' greed and too many guns on the street in 18-year-old hands that the bad guys have flipped the script on the good guys.

I do not believe most Police complain of being Outgunned. What do you think the bad guys have that the Police don't have?

Capitalism is based on supply and demand. Gun manufacturers are a business like any other seeking a reasonable profit. Where are you getting the "greed" comment from?

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

Crime and criminal activity and mass murder and DOMESTIC terrorism also cost society in America lots of MONEY.

How much?

[Sarah_W]

Originally Posted by jimjamuser

The one that the young boy in Uvalde used was marketed especially to young males. And there is BIG money for all the AR-15 style and AK-47 weapons' and accessories' advertisements because the profit margin is SO MUCH greater than for plain-Jane wooden-stock hunting rifles.

How exactly is that marketing done?

What is the profit margin on an AR or AK?

What is the profit margin on wooden stocked rifles?

If you are going to make such claims please back them up with facts and citations.

[Sarah_W]

Yesterday, Jennifer Fernandez, 22 drove her car eastbound in the westbound lanes of I-90 and hit a van head-on containing a woman and five children. Everyone died at the scene.

Earlier this month 53 immigrants died in a semi-truck trailer in San Antonio.

The problem is these high capacity vehicles are killing a lot of people.

In 2021, 42, 915 people died in the US in vehicle crashes. Nobody needs a high capacity vehicle. You never hear of a motorcycle hitting another motorcycle head-on. You never hear of a motorcycle be responsible for mass killings. We can solve these mass killing events if everyone had a single occupant vehicle such as a motorcycle. Anyone below the age of 25 however should have a bicycle.

[Eg_cruz]

Originally Posted by RVJim

Given your profile picture we know where your bias is at. No thanks not interested in engaging with an obviously biased original poster with some sort of agenda.

Isn’t that exactly what you’re doing showing your bias off of someone’s photo

[Eg_cruz]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

And that is the problem right there. That YOU have decided that the problem is a failure of uniform definition of the term "mass murder."

Here's the solution to that problem: stop insisting that's the problem. That's not the problem. The definition of "mass murder" doesn't matter a darned bit.

What matters is that people who shouldn't have had firearms, had them, and used them to kill people who they didn't have the right to kill.

That's the "problem."

I get your point and get his too.
His point is the media labels a shooting a mass murder of 4 or more whether it’s crimes of passion, family members, people they know versus someone intent to kill anybody within their site.
The media does this to scare the public to push the gun law agenda.
On the other hand you right killing 4 or more friend or stranger what does it matter that the are call the same thing.
It’s how you look at it.
I happen to agree with the OP, because I do think the media has an agenda.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

The Vegas shooting and Highland Park shooting are not average mass shootings. The Vegas shooting resulted in 473 casualties and the Highland shooting resulted in 55 casualties. The average mass shooting results in 10 casualties. The average mass shooting does not occur from a rooftop or the 32nd floor. The average mass shooting happens in a confined space with most mass shootings occurring in the home.

That is why 77% of mass shootings are done with a handgun. It doesn't make sense to use a semi-automatic rifle in a home, church, or nightclub. I would like to know how much planning goes into a mass murderer's intention. In my humble opinion the Greenwood Mall shooting was poorly planned. An AR-15 doesn't make sense in a mall, beginning with the food court. Let's look at the logistics. Let's assume he carried the AR under a trench coat and 10 mags loaded with 30 rounds each. That would give him 300 rounds with a total weight of 11 pounds for ammo and the rifle at 6.5 pounds for a total of nearly 18 pounds. That doesn't seem difficult other than being tricky to hide the AR.

A Glock 19 weighs 1.5 pounds. 9 magazines holding 33 rounds of 9mm weighs 8.25 pounds. That would be a total of 9.75 pounds, or roughly half the weight of an AR setup and easier to hide it all in a back pack. I would think this is all considered in the planning stage.

The rifle is by far the superior tool as compared to a pistol for a demented mass murderer that has a well-planned strategy for his killing spree. The key superiority of a RIFLE is the distance. A minimally trained killer could easily shoot into a crowd like at a July 4th parade from a DISTANCE of 50 to 200 yards away. I don't know the exact distance that the Las Vegas shooter was killing people at, but I would guess an average of 75 yards. An AR-15 RIFLE and the rifle cartridge that it fires are designed to hit a target at 100 to 200 yards with much more accuracy and terminal velocity than a PISTOL. The cartridge design for a RIFLE is bigger than a PISTOL cartridge - thus allowing MORE powder and therefore more VELOCITY at the muzzle and downrange. The very aerodynamic bullet design of most rifles allows the bullet to travel through 200 or more yards of air resistance with a flatter trajectory and less energy loss than a typical PISTOL bullet design.

A pistol in contrast is designed for hitting targets under 50 yards by a shooter with limited training. The sight radius between the front sight of a PISTOL is much shorter than that of a RIFLE - Thus making the pistol inherently less accurate than a rifle. The pistol cartridge normally has less powder than a rifle cartridge. So, the muzzle velocity is less for the pistol. The pistol bullet is normally shorter, blunter, and less aerodynamically configured than a rifle bullet. This gives a PISTOL bullet a less flat trajectory and less velocity and energy at 100 yards than a RIFLE bullet

Overall a pistol is a short-range firearm compared to a rifle. That is why military snipers, obviously, use rifles and NOT pistols.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

Approximately 6,000 people are murdered every year with a firearm. According to FBI of those 6,000 murders, 340 are done with rifles of ALL types. From 2007-2017, 173 people were killed by an AR style rifle. That is an average of 17.3 per year during that decade. The fact of the matter is AR style rifles are rarely used in murders of any kind.

Estimates are there are about 20 million AR's in the country, yet it is rare to be used in murder. The solution you are proposing is to deny millions of Americans their Constitutional right to own an AR while have a negligible effect on murders. That solution is not logical to me and unacceptable to law-abiding citizens such as myself.

As to the last sentence..........US people may change their minds as to how MUCH gun regulation they will accept - IF these mass-murder events continue to increase. The past can be a good predictor or the future. And the PAST 2 years have had LARGE increases in mass murders. So, likely, the near future will be a DISASTER with respect to DOMESTIC terrorism. People will get "up in arms" about the situation (no pun intended).

I keep repeating that Australia and other countries have SOLVED their domestic terrorism PROBLEM. Why can't the US ? I would tend to believe it is because of NRA propaganda emanating from the high profits made by the gun manufacturers. Australia and New Zealand never let the NRA (or similar organization) get their propaganda-dripping hooks into their society.

[jimjamuser]

Originally Posted by Sarah_W

I do not believe most Police complain of being Outgunned. What do you think the bad guys have that the Police don't have?

Capitalism is based on supply and demand. Gun manufacturers are a business like any other seeking a reasonable profit. Where are you getting the "greed" comment from?

Well, they have the element of surprise. That is the big thing. The Police are only reacting. The bad guys are initiating the TERROR. The Police in Uvalde were TERRORIZED. They were running backward in that hallway as if the devil incarnate was chasing them. They were AFRAID, Also, the terrorist COULD have silencers, bump-stops, and even 50 cal 2,000-yard sniper rifles, which are all LEGAL to possess. Police do NOT use those!