Texas Mass Murder
#41
Are you aware that the Church shooter (shooting an AR-556 Ruger, the same as an AR-15) was shot and stopped by an NRA instructor who shot him with..... an AR-15 of his own?

Let's fast forward to yesterday, when Diane Feinstein introduced yet another bill, banning the manufacture, sale and a bunch of other things, a large number of guns including the AR-15. And as you said, a great number of these already exist out there, and her bill did not discuss the CONFISCATION of the existing ones. (Even she knows we aren't quite the Soviet Union, yet)

Fast forward a bit more. As you say, there will probably be another crazy asshole out there with a gun.  All Feinstein's bill would do is possibly disarm (not allow to BE armed) someone nearby who could have stopped it.  But your eyes just glazed over at that didn't they?  You will stick your fingers in your ears and yell "LALALALA" before you will admit that a GOOD guy took out a BAD guy, with the same gun, because of the Right to Bear Arms.

Note...  I couldn't even read the articles that I saw with headlines like "..shot crying children at point blank".  Your post suggests that I don't care or feel the pain for the loss of the lives of those killed.  For that, I say Fuck You.
Reply
#42
(11-09-2017, 08:42 AM)Hugo Wrote: Are you aware that the Church shooter (shooting an AR-556 Ruger, the same as an AR-15) was shot and stopped by an NRA instructor who shot him with..... an AR-15 of his own?

Let's fast forward to yesterday, when Diane Feinstein introduced yet another bill, banning the manufacture, sale and a bunch of other things, a large number of guns including the AR-15. And as you said, a great number of these already exist out there, and her bill did not discuss the CONFISCATION of the existing ones. (Even she knows we aren't quite the Soviet Union, yet)

Fast forward a bit more. As you say, there will probably be another crazy asshole out there with a gun.  All Feinstein's bill would do is possibly disarm (not allow to BE armed) someone nearby who could have stopped it.  But your eyes just glazed over at that didn't they?  You will stick your fingers in your ears and yell "LALALALA" before you will admit that a GOOD guy took out a BAD guy, with the same gun, because of the Right to Bear Arms.

Note...  I couldn't even read the articles that I saw with headlines like "..shot crying children at point blank".  Your post suggests that I don't care or feel the pain for the loss of the lives of those killed.  For that, I say Fuck You.
Whoa!
Why do you suggest I support Feinstein's bill? I don't (It will never pass anyway)
And the church shooter was not stopped until AFTER his horrific act. I was thinking of someone IN the church blasting away at the shooter and hitting innocent people. (Explained fully in my comments) 
And my post does NOT suggest you don't feel the pain of children dying. I NEVER suggested that. My comment was the pain we ALL feel when children are victims of these mass shootings.
And REALLY...is it necessary to include the "Fuck You" comment? That really makes it difficult to continue with any kind of civil dialog. 
I think you read "into" my post what you wanted to hear rather the content of the post.
Reply
#43
(11-09-2017, 09:19 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 08:42 AM)Hugo Wrote: Are you aware that the Church shooter (shooting an AR-556 Ruger, the same as an AR-15) was shot and stopped by an NRA instructor who shot him with..... an AR-15 of his own?

Let's fast forward to yesterday, when Diane Feinstein introduced yet another bill, banning the manufacture, sale and a bunch of other things, a large number of guns including the AR-15. And as you said, a great number of these already exist out there, and her bill did not discuss the CONFISCATION of the existing ones. (Even she knows we aren't quite the Soviet Union, yet)

Fast forward a bit more. As you say, there will probably be another crazy asshole out there with a gun.  All Feinstein's bill would do is possibly disarm (not allow to BE armed) someone nearby who could have stopped it.  But your eyes just glazed over at that didn't they?  You will stick your fingers in your ears and yell "LALALALA" before you will admit that a GOOD guy took out a BAD guy, with the same gun, because of the Right to Bear Arms.

Note...  I couldn't even read the articles that I saw with headlines like "..shot crying children at point blank".  Your post suggests that I don't care or feel the pain for the loss of the lives of those killed.  For that, I say Fuck You.
Whoa!
Why do you suggest I support Feinstein's bill? I don't (It will never pass anyway)
And the church shooter was not stopped until AFTER his horrific act. I was thinking of someone IN the church blasting away at the shooter and hitting innocent people. (Explained fully in my comments) 
And my post does NOT suggest you don't feel the pain of children dying. I NEVER suggested that. My comment was the pain we ALL feel when children are victims of these mass shootings.
And REALLY...is it necessary to include the "Fuck You" comment? That really makes it difficult to continue with any kind of civil dialog. 
I think you read "into" my post what you wanted to hear rather the content of the post.

Of course you support Feinsteins bill. "Civilians don't need rifles that can fire many many rounds in a short time. And, they don't need multiple magazines that hold lots of rounds."  Your words, and hers.

The shooter wasn't DONE, he was just done at the Church, so he WAS stopped before he could do even more damage.

And about feelings.....  Wink As you just told BBQ.....  It's in your TONE.

And I thoroughly enjoy the Fuck Yous, because I know how much you hate it.... Laughing

Besides, I ain't long for this place....  so I will say what I want.  When I want.  To whomever I want.
Reply
#44
(11-09-2017, 09:34 AM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 09:19 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 08:42 AM)Hugo Wrote: Are you aware that the Church shooter (shooting an AR-556 Ruger, the same as an AR-15) was shot and stopped by an NRA instructor who shot him with..... an AR-15 of his own?

Let's fast forward to yesterday, when Diane Feinstein introduced yet another bill, banning the manufacture, sale and a bunch of other things, a large number of guns including the AR-15. And as you said, a great number of these already exist out there, and her bill did not discuss the CONFISCATION of the existing ones. (Even she knows we aren't quite the Soviet Union, yet)

Fast forward a bit more. As you say, there will probably be another crazy asshole out there with a gun.  All Feinstein's bill would do is possibly disarm (not allow to BE armed) someone nearby who could have stopped it.  But your eyes just glazed over at that didn't they?  You will stick your fingers in your ears and yell "LALALALA" before you will admit that a GOOD guy took out a BAD guy, with the same gun, because of the Right to Bear Arms.

Note...  I couldn't even read the articles that I saw with headlines like "..shot crying children at point blank".  Your post suggests that I don't care or feel the pain for the loss of the lives of those killed.  For that, I say Fuck You.
Whoa!
Why do you suggest I support Feinstein's bill? I don't (It will never pass anyway)
And the church shooter was not stopped until AFTER his horrific act. I was thinking of someone IN the church blasting away at the shooter and hitting innocent people. (Explained fully in my comments) 
And my post does NOT suggest you don't feel the pain of children dying. I NEVER suggested that. My comment was the pain we ALL feel when children are victims of these mass shootings.
And REALLY...is it necessary to include the "Fuck You" comment? That really makes it difficult to continue with any kind of civil dialog. 
I think you read "into" my post what you wanted to hear rather the content of the post.

Of course you support Feinsteins bill. "Civilians don't need rifles that can fire many many rounds in a short time. And, they don't need multiple magazines that hold lots of rounds."  Your words, and hers.

The shooter wasn't DONE, he was just done at the Church, so he WAS stopped before he could do even more damage.

And about feelings.....  Wink As you just told BBQ.....  It's in your TONE.

And I thoroughly enjoy the Fuck Yous, because I know how much you hate it.... Laughing

Besides, I ain't long for this place....  so I will say what I want.  When I want.  To whomever I want.
Well...
Don't know where to start. Or finish.
My comments earlier about how I feel PERSONALLY about "assault style rifles" is just that...a personal view and it does not in any way suggest I support gun laws that might outlaw it. As I said, "that horse is out of the barn, there are too many out there" so new laws won't make any difference anyway. True, I don't understand why people NEED them, but understand they WANT them, and again, that's only a personal view. 
About the church shooter. You really think he was going to get very far away? He had DONE his damage. But, I'm glad our civilian got to him first and fast and glad he had a gun to use. I only wish he could have died more slowly and in a great deal of pain. 
And of course you are free to say what you want, when you want, and where you want. Can you understand that when you say "fuck you" it is insulting and can kill reasonable dialog? 
As to my tone: I went back and looked at that. If my "tone" offended you, it's difficult for me to see it. But, I regret that it did.
Reply
#45
He was after his mother in law and he did just that,
back to the oh so effective intercessory prayer.

Re:fuck you. anger management problems?
Reply
#46
(11-09-2017, 02:07 PM)Willie Krash Wrote: He was after his mother in law and he did just that,
back to the oh so effective intercessory prayer.

Re:fuck you. anger management problems?

? His mother in law was not in church that day.
Reply
#47
(11-08-2017, 04:36 PM)Wonky3 Wrote: Civilians don't need rifles that can fire many many rounds in a short time. And, they don't need multiple magazines that hold lots of rounds. 

They want them, but don't need them.

But it's moot.

Those guns are out there. Untold numbers of them. We can't recall them.

Insane nut jobs can and will have them. Some will use them to kill people. 

You may want to think about going to church, the movies, an outdoor concert, or other places where people congregate. 

It's our new normal. 

Next: The freedom to cry fire in a crowded theater?

"You may want to think about going to church, the movies, an outdoor concert, or other places where people congregate."

YOU may want to rethink that comment. Big Grin  Because it implies that because of mass shootings it's not safe to go to all those places you mentioned.
I want you to consider what the odds actually are that you or anyone else who goes to those events will run in to a mass shooter.
Do you think going to those places is as dangerous as driving your car? I can guarantee you are in much more danger in a car. I would say one hundred times more dangerous.

How many church shooting have there been? Out of how many thousands of cities all across the country? Out of how many Sundays?

Don't let the media fool you in to thinking YOU are facing a significant threat from a mass shooter.
Reply
#48
(11-09-2017, 09:19 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 08:42 AM)Hugo Wrote: Are you aware that the Church shooter (shooting an AR-556 Ruger, the same as an AR-15) was shot and stopped by an NRA instructor who shot him with..... an AR-15 of his own?

Let's fast forward to yesterday, when Diane Feinstein introduced yet another bill, banning the manufacture, sale and a bunch of other things, a large number of guns including the AR-15. And as you said, a great number of these already exist out there, and her bill did not discuss the CONFISCATION of the existing ones. (Even she knows we aren't quite the Soviet Union, yet)

Fast forward a bit more. As you say, there will probably be another crazy asshole out there with a gun.  All Feinstein's bill would do is possibly disarm (not allow to BE armed) someone nearby who could have stopped it.  But your eyes just glazed over at that didn't they?  You will stick your fingers in your ears and yell "LALALALA" before you will admit that a GOOD guy took out a BAD guy, with the same gun, because of the Right to Bear Arms.

Note...  I couldn't even read the articles that I saw with headlines like "..shot crying children at point blank".  Your post suggests that I don't care or feel the pain for the loss of the lives of those killed.  For that, I say Fuck You.
Whoa!
Why do you suggest I support Feinstein's bill? I don't (It will never pass anyway)
And the church shooter was not stopped until AFTER his horrific act. I was thinking of someone IN the church blasting away at the shooter and hitting innocent people. (Explained fully in my comments) 
And my post does NOT suggest you don't feel the pain of children dying. I NEVER suggested that. My comment was the pain we ALL feel when children are victims of these mass shootings.
And REALLY...is it necessary to include the "Fuck You" comment? That really makes it difficult to continue with any kind of civil dialog. 
I think you read "into" my post what you wanted to hear rather the content of the post.

Wonky.. If some nut is picking off people in some room like shooting fish in a barrel and has plenty of ammo, and appears to have no intention of stopping.
Wouldn't you want to have at least one person in the room shoot at the guy EVEN IF that person might accidentally shoot an innocent?
Reply
#49
(11-09-2017, 09:59 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 09:34 AM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 09:19 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 08:42 AM)Hugo Wrote: Are you aware that the Church shooter (shooting an AR-556 Ruger, the same as an AR-15) was shot and stopped by an NRA instructor who shot him with..... an AR-15 of his own?

Let's fast forward to yesterday, when Diane Feinstein introduced yet another bill, banning the manufacture, sale and a bunch of other things, a large number of guns including the AR-15. And as you said, a great number of these already exist out there, and her bill did not discuss the CONFISCATION of the existing ones. (Even she knows we aren't quite the Soviet Union, yet)

Fast forward a bit more. As you say, there will probably be another crazy asshole out there with a gun.  All Feinstein's bill would do is possibly disarm (not allow to BE armed) someone nearby who could have stopped it.  But your eyes just glazed over at that didn't they?  You will stick your fingers in your ears and yell "LALALALA" before you will admit that a GOOD guy took out a BAD guy, with the same gun, because of the Right to Bear Arms.

Note...  I couldn't even read the articles that I saw with headlines like "..shot crying children at point blank".  Your post suggests that I don't care or feel the pain for the loss of the lives of those killed.  For that, I say Fuck You.
Whoa!
Why do you suggest I support Feinstein's bill? I don't (It will never pass anyway)
And the church shooter was not stopped until AFTER his horrific act. I was thinking of someone IN the church blasting away at the shooter and hitting innocent people. (Explained fully in my comments) 
And my post does NOT suggest you don't feel the pain of children dying. I NEVER suggested that. My comment was the pain we ALL feel when children are victims of these mass shootings.
And REALLY...is it necessary to include the "Fuck You" comment? That really makes it difficult to continue with any kind of civil dialog. 
I think you read "into" my post what you wanted to hear rather the content of the post.

Of course you support Feinsteins bill. "Civilians don't need rifles that can fire many many rounds in a short time. And, they don't need multiple magazines that hold lots of rounds."  Your words, and hers.

The shooter wasn't DONE, he was just done at the Church, so he WAS stopped before he could do even more damage.

And about feelings.....  Wink As you just told BBQ.....  It's in your TONE.

And I thoroughly enjoy the Fuck Yous, because I know how much you hate it.... Laughing

Besides, I ain't long for this place....  so I will say what I want.  When I want.  To whomever I want.
Well...
Don't know where to start. Or finish.
My comments earlier about how I feel PERSONALLY about "assault style rifles" is just that...a personal view and it does not in any way suggest I support gun laws that might outlaw it. As I said, "that horse is out of the barn, there are too many out there" so new laws won't make any difference anyway. True, I don't understand why people NEED them, but understand they WANT them, and again, that's only a personal view. 
About the church shooter. You really think he was going to get very far away? He had DONE his damage. But, I'm glad our civilian got to him first and fast and glad he had a gun to use. I only wish he could have died more slowly and in a great deal of pain. 
And of course you are free to say what you want, when you want, and where you want. Can you understand that when you say "fuck you" it is insulting and can kill reasonable dialog? 
As to my tone: I went back and looked at that. If my "tone" offended you, it's difficult for me to see it. But, I regret that it did.

You have mentioned assault rifles a few times. And I can see that in your mind because high capacity magazines go hand in hand with  "assault rifles" that these rifles are the problem.

Well what about these magazines? Here's on that will fit my Glock and I'm sure I could find ones that fit my other semi automatic pistols.

[Image: k0k4cj.jpg]
Reply
#50
(11-09-2017, 04:07 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 09:59 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 09:34 AM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 09:19 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 08:42 AM)Hugo Wrote: Are you aware that the Church shooter (shooting an AR-556 Ruger, the same as an AR-15) was shot and stopped by an NRA instructor who shot him with..... an AR-15 of his own?

Let's fast forward to yesterday, when Diane Feinstein introduced yet another bill, banning the manufacture, sale and a bunch of other things, a large number of guns including the AR-15. And as you said, a great number of these already exist out there, and her bill did not discuss the CONFISCATION of the existing ones. (Even she knows we aren't quite the Soviet Union, yet)

Fast forward a bit more. As you say, there will probably be another crazy asshole out there with a gun.  All Feinstein's bill would do is possibly disarm (not allow to BE armed) someone nearby who could have stopped it.  But your eyes just glazed over at that didn't they?  You will stick your fingers in your ears and yell "LALALALA" before you will admit that a GOOD guy took out a BAD guy, with the same gun, because of the Right to Bear Arms.

Note...  I couldn't even read the articles that I saw with headlines like "..shot crying children at point blank".  Your post suggests that I don't care or feel the pain for the loss of the lives of those killed.  For that, I say Fuck You.
Whoa!
Why do you suggest I support Feinstein's bill? I don't (It will never pass anyway)
And the church shooter was not stopped until AFTER his horrific act. I was thinking of someone IN the church blasting away at the shooter and hitting innocent people. (Explained fully in my comments) 
And my post does NOT suggest you don't feel the pain of children dying. I NEVER suggested that. My comment was the pain we ALL feel when children are victims of these mass shootings.
And REALLY...is it necessary to include the "Fuck You" comment? That really makes it difficult to continue with any kind of civil dialog. 
I think you read "into" my post what you wanted to hear rather the content of the post.

Of course you support Feinsteins bill. "Civilians don't need rifles that can fire many many rounds in a short time. And, they don't need multiple magazines that hold lots of rounds."  Your words, and hers.

The shooter wasn't DONE, he was just done at the Church, so he WAS stopped before he could do even more damage.

And about feelings.....  Wink As you just told BBQ.....  It's in your TONE.

And I thoroughly enjoy the Fuck Yous, because I know how much you hate it.... Laughing

Besides, I ain't long for this place....  so I will say what I want.  When I want.  To whomever I want.
Well...
Don't know where to start. Or finish.
My comments earlier about how I feel PERSONALLY about "assault style rifles" is just that...a personal view and it does not in any way suggest I support gun laws that might outlaw it. As I said, "that horse is out of the barn, there are too many out there" so new laws won't make any difference anyway. True, I don't understand why people NEED them, but understand they WANT them, and again, that's only a personal view. 
About the church shooter. You really think he was going to get very far away? He had DONE his damage. But, I'm glad our civilian got to him first and fast and glad he had a gun to use. I only wish he could have died more slowly and in a great deal of pain. 
And of course you are free to say what you want, when you want, and where you want. Can you understand that when you say "fuck you" it is insulting and can kill reasonable dialog? 
As to my tone: I went back and looked at that. If my "tone" offended you, it's difficult for me to see it. But, I regret that it did.

You have mentioned assault rifles a few times. And I can see that in your mind because high capacity magazines go hand in hand with  "assault rifles" that these rifles are the problem.

Well what about these magazines? Here's on that will fit my Glock and I'm sure I could find ones that fit my other semi automatic pistols.

[Image: k0k4cj.jpg]

Yes, I agree with all the above. I guess you are right: If the nut job is spaying bullets and someone is carrying, might as well try to hit the bastard even if someone else gets hit too. Might save at least some folks.
I get your point about the magazines. Doesn't seem to matter really except that a rifle is more accurate. 
And yes, we should not worry about going out into public. As you said, the odds are very much in our favor. I got sucked into the media hype.
Reply
#51
(11-09-2017, 04:36 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 04:07 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 09:59 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 09:34 AM)Hugo Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 09:19 AM)Wonky3 Wrote: Whoa!
Why do you suggest I support Feinstein's bill? I don't (It will never pass anyway)
And the church shooter was not stopped until AFTER his horrific act. I was thinking of someone IN the church blasting away at the shooter and hitting innocent people. (Explained fully in my comments) 
And my post does NOT suggest you don't feel the pain of children dying. I NEVER suggested that. My comment was the pain we ALL feel when children are victims of these mass shootings.
And REALLY...is it necessary to include the "Fuck You" comment? That really makes it difficult to continue with any kind of civil dialog. 
I think you read "into" my post what you wanted to hear rather the content of the post.

Of course you support Feinsteins bill. "Civilians don't need rifles that can fire many many rounds in a short time. And, they don't need multiple magazines that hold lots of rounds."  Your words, and hers.

The shooter wasn't DONE, he was just done at the Church, so he WAS stopped before he could do even more damage.

And about feelings.....  Wink As you just told BBQ.....  It's in your TONE.

And I thoroughly enjoy the Fuck Yous, because I know how much you hate it.... Laughing

Besides, I ain't long for this place....  so I will say what I want.  When I want.  To whomever I want.
Well...
Don't know where to start. Or finish.
My comments earlier about how I feel PERSONALLY about "assault style rifles" is just that...a personal view and it does not in any way suggest I support gun laws that might outlaw it. As I said, "that horse is out of the barn, there are too many out there" so new laws won't make any difference anyway. True, I don't understand why people NEED them, but understand they WANT them, and again, that's only a personal view. 
About the church shooter. You really think he was going to get very far away? He had DONE his damage. But, I'm glad our civilian got to him first and fast and glad he had a gun to use. I only wish he could have died more slowly and in a great deal of pain. 
And of course you are free to say what you want, when you want, and where you want. Can you understand that when you say "fuck you" it is insulting and can kill reasonable dialog? 
As to my tone: I went back and looked at that. If my "tone" offended you, it's difficult for me to see it. But, I regret that it did.

You have mentioned assault rifles a few times. And I can see that in your mind because high capacity magazines go hand in hand with  "assault rifles" that these rifles are the problem.

Well what about these magazines? Here's on that will fit my Glock and I'm sure I could find ones that fit my other semi automatic pistols.

[Image: k0k4cj.jpg]

Yes, I agree with all the above. I guess you are right: If the nut job is spaying bullets and someone is carrying, might as well try to hit the bastard even if someone else gets hit too. Might save at least some folks.
I get your point about the magazines. Doesn't seem to matter really except that a rifle is more accurate. 
And yes, we should not worry about going out into public. As you said, the odds are very much in our favor. I got sucked into the media hype.
Smiling 

Doesn't seem to matter really except that a rifle is more accurate

I actually thought about that. And then I thought about some of the recent mass shootings.
The guy in Las Vegas was not aiming all all as far as I can tell. And he killed and wounded more than anyone
And  I can think of others where accuracy was not an issue.
Reply
#52
(11-09-2017, 06:51 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 04:36 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 04:07 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 09:59 AM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 09:34 AM)Hugo Wrote: Of course you support Feinsteins bill. "Civilians don't need rifles that can fire many many rounds in a short time. And, they don't need multiple magazines that hold lots of rounds."  Your words, and hers.

The shooter wasn't DONE, he was just done at the Church, so he WAS stopped before he could do even more damage.

And about feelings.....  Wink As you just told BBQ.....  It's in your TONE.

And I thoroughly enjoy the Fuck Yous, because I know how much you hate it.... Laughing

Besides, I ain't long for this place....  so I will say what I want.  When I want.  To whomever I want.
Well...
Don't know where to start. Or finish.
My comments earlier about how I feel PERSONALLY about "assault style rifles" is just that...a personal view and it does not in any way suggest I support gun laws that might outlaw it. As I said, "that horse is out of the barn, there are too many out there" so new laws won't make any difference anyway. True, I don't understand why people NEED them, but understand they WANT them, and again, that's only a personal view. 
About the church shooter. You really think he was going to get very far away? He had DONE his damage. But, I'm glad our civilian got to him first and fast and glad he had a gun to use. I only wish he could have died more slowly and in a great deal of pain. 
And of course you are free to say what you want, when you want, and where you want. Can you understand that when you say "fuck you" it is insulting and can kill reasonable dialog? 
As to my tone: I went back and looked at that. If my "tone" offended you, it's difficult for me to see it. But, I regret that it did.

You have mentioned assault rifles a few times. And I can see that in your mind because high capacity magazines go hand in hand with  "assault rifles" that these rifles are the problem.

Well what about these magazines? Here's on that will fit my Glock and I'm sure I could find ones that fit my other semi automatic pistols.

[Image: k0k4cj.jpg]

Yes, I agree with all the above. I guess you are right: If the nut job is spaying bullets and someone is carrying, might as well try to hit the bastard even if someone else gets hit too. Might save at least some folks.
I get your point about the magazines. Doesn't seem to matter really except that a rifle is more accurate. 
And yes, we should not worry about going out into public. As you said, the odds are very much in our favor. I got sucked into the media hype.
Smiling 

Doesn't seem to matter really except that a rifle is more accurate

I actually thought about that. And then I thought about some of the recent mass shootings.
The guy in Las Vegas was not aiming all all as far as I can tell. And he killed and wounded more than anyone
And  I can think of others where accuracy was not an issue.
Right you are. But you are taking about "the shooter", right? Hell, he doesn't care about being accurate, he just wants to put as many rounds in the air as fast as possible and aim for the group.
I was thinking of the guy IN the group who is packing and would want to take out a shooter in range. Then, it would seem, being accurate would matter. And most likely the guy packing would have a handgun I'd guess.
Reply
#53
(11-09-2017, 06:51 PM)tvguy Wrote: Smiling 

Doesn't seem to matter really except that a rifle is more accurate

I actually thought about that. And then I thought about some of the recent mass shootings.
The guy in Las Vegas was not aiming all all as far as I can tell. And he killed and wounded more than anyone
And  I can think of others where accuracy was not an issue.

He was actually. At least as best he could considering the distance. 

Quote:A note found in the hotel room of the man who shot into a crowd from his perch in a Las Vegas high-rise included hand-written calculations about where he needed to aim to maximize his accuracy and kill as many people as possible.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/las-vegas-g...rajectory/
Reply
#54
(11-09-2017, 08:39 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 06:51 PM)tvguy Wrote: Smiling 

Doesn't seem to matter really except that a rifle is more accurate

I actually thought about that. And then I thought about some of the recent mass shootings.
The guy in Las Vegas was not aiming all all as far as I can tell. And he killed and wounded more than anyone
And  I can think of others where accuracy was not an issue.

He was actually. At least as best he could considering the distance. 

Quote:A note found in the hotel room of the man who shot into a crowd from his perch in a Las Vegas high-rise included hand-written calculations about where he needed to aim to maximize his accuracy and kill as many people as possible.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/las-vegas-g...rajectory/

I still say he was not aiming. He calculated the trajectory so he would know approximately where to shoot to hit a CROWD.
IMO aiming a weapon accurately when it's basically firing like an automatic with a cheap bump stock is next to impossible
Reply
#55
(11-09-2017, 09:43 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 08:39 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 06:51 PM)tvguy Wrote: Smiling 

Doesn't seem to matter really except that a rifle is more accurate

I actually thought about that. And then I thought about some of the recent mass shootings.
The guy in Las Vegas was not aiming all all as far as I can tell. And he killed and wounded more than anyone
And  I can think of others where accuracy was not an issue.

He was actually. At least as best he could considering the distance. 

Quote:A note found in the hotel room of the man who shot into a crowd from his perch in a Las Vegas high-rise included hand-written calculations about where he needed to aim to maximize his accuracy and kill as many people as possible.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/las-vegas-g...rajectory/

I still say he was not aiming. He calculated the trajectory so he would know approximately where to shoot to hit a CROWD.
IMO aiming a weapon accurately when it's basically firing like an automatic with a cheap bump stock is next to impossible
Well, aiming or not aiming he got the job done and as we discuss this there are even now people learning that grief is painful, tedious, and almost impossible to bear in the middle of the night.
I'm not anti-gun. I don't have one, but if I wanted one I want the freedom to own it.
I don't care that this mad man may have aimed or not aimed. 
I want some people smarter than me to figure out how we can have the freedoms given us and at the same time prevent this madness from happening. At least not often.
"Come, let us reason together" Isaiah asked us. (And I'm an atheist)
Reply
#56
(11-09-2017, 10:01 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 09:43 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 08:39 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 06:51 PM)tvguy Wrote: Smiling 

Doesn't seem to matter really except that a rifle is more accurate

I actually thought about that. And then I thought about some of the recent mass shootings.
The guy in Las Vegas was not aiming all all as far as I can tell. And he killed and wounded more than anyone
And  I can think of others where accuracy was not an issue.

He was actually. At least as best he could considering the distance. 

Quote:A note found in the hotel room of the man who shot into a crowd from his perch in a Las Vegas high-rise included hand-written calculations about where he needed to aim to maximize his accuracy and kill as many people as possible.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/las-vegas-g...rajectory/

I still say he was not aiming. He calculated the trajectory so he would know approximately where to shoot to hit a CROWD.
IMO aiming a weapon accurately when it's basically firing like an automatic with a cheap bump stock is next to impossible
Well, aiming or not aiming he got the job done and as we discuss this there are even now people learning that grief is painful, tedious, and almost impossible to bear in the middle of the night.
I'm not anti-gun. I don't have one, but if I wanted one I want the freedom to own it.
I don't care that this mad man may have aimed or not aimed. 
I want some people smarter than me to figure out how we can have the freedoms given us and at the same time prevent this madness from happening. At least not often.
"Come, let us reason together" Isaiah asked us. (And I'm an atheist)

OK Wonky, you seemed to imply along with many others that Assault weapons were the problem.

 Well just what the hell is an assault weapon? It is a semiautomatic rifle that uses a magazine.
And that magazine can hold 30 rounds.

So I showed that I can buy and make my little old semi automatic Glock 9mm hold just as many rounds as an assault rifle.

From there I thought you were bringing up the point that the pistol was not as accurate. So I said that accuracy didn't seem all that important in many if not most of the mass shootings.
Reply
#57
(11-09-2017, 10:01 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 09:43 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 08:39 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 06:51 PM)tvguy Wrote: Smiling 

Doesn't seem to matter really except that a rifle is more accurate

I actually thought about that. And then I thought about some of the recent mass shootings.
The guy in Las Vegas was not aiming all all as far as I can tell. And he killed and wounded more than anyone
And  I can think of others where accuracy was not an issue.

He was actually. At least as best he could considering the distance. 

Quote:A note found in the hotel room of the man who shot into a crowd from his perch in a Las Vegas high-rise included hand-written calculations about where he needed to aim to maximize his accuracy and kill as many people as possible.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/las-vegas-g...rajectory/

I still say he was not aiming. He calculated the trajectory so he would know approximately where to shoot to hit a CROWD.
IMO aiming a weapon accurately when it's basically firing like an automatic with a cheap bump stock is next to impossible
Well, aiming or not aiming he got the job done and as we discuss this there are even now people learning that grief is painful, tedious, and almost impossible to bear in the middle of the night.
I'm not anti-gun. I don't have one, but if I wanted one I want the freedom to own it.
I don't care that this mad man may have aimed or not aimed. 
I want some people smarter than me to figure out how we can have the freedoms given us and at the same time prevent this madness from happening. At least not often.
"Come, let us reason together" Isaiah asked us. (And I'm an atheist)
I want some people smarter than me to figure out how we can have the freedoms given us and at the same time prevent this madness from happening.

Sometimes there just isn't an answer. There is NO ONE who is just going to come up with an answer no matter how smart they are.
At least not often

What can be done will be done. Eliminate bump fire stocks,stricter gun laws. try and keep loons from getting guns etc etc
Reply
#58
(11-09-2017, 10:15 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 10:01 PM)Wonky3 Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 09:43 PM)tvguy Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 08:39 PM)Valuesize Wrote:
(11-09-2017, 06:51 PM)tvguy Wrote: Smiling 

Doesn't seem to matter really except that a rifle is more accurate

I actually thought about that. And then I thought about some of the recent mass shootings.
The guy in Las Vegas was not aiming all all as far as I can tell. And he killed and wounded more than anyone
And  I can think of others where accuracy was not an issue.

He was actually. At least as best he could considering the distance. 

Quote:A note found in the hotel room of the man who shot into a crowd from his perch in a Las Vegas high-rise included hand-written calculations about where he needed to aim to maximize his accuracy and kill as many people as possible.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/las-vegas-g...rajectory/

I still say he was not aiming. He calculated the trajectory so he would know approximately where to shoot to hit a CROWD.
IMO aiming a weapon accurately when it's basically firing like an automatic with a cheap bump stock is next to impossible
Well, aiming or not aiming he got the job done and as we discuss this there are even now people learning that grief is painful, tedious, and almost impossible to bear in the middle of the night.
I'm not anti-gun. I don't have one, but if I wanted one I want the freedom to own it.
I don't care that this mad man may have aimed or not aimed. 
I want some people smarter than me to figure out how we can have the freedoms given us and at the same time prevent this madness from happening. At least not often.
"Come, let us reason together" Isaiah asked us. (And I'm an atheist)
I want some people smarter than me to figure out how we can have the freedoms given us and at the same time prevent this madness from happening.

Sometimes there just isn't an answer. There is NO ONE who is just going to come up with an answer no matter how smart they are.
At least not often

What can be done will be done. Eliminate bump fire stocks,stricter gun laws. try and keep loons from getting guns etc etc
Your'e right. I know it, I just don't want to accept it. 
And I know I can't blame the assault type weapons because some nut has to pick it up and use it for it to be a danger. It just seems it makes it so damn EFFECTIVE! 
So, I think you nailed it by saying it is going to take a lot of different things (actions) to change things. I hope it happens sooner than later. Probably, like so many things, will happen one step at a time. 
It's just that enough tragic shit happens too often by accident, and it is almost impossible to bear when this awful stuff happens by deliberate evil action. 
Welcome to the human race, I guess.  Wink
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)