5 ms·

That's a valid point, especially in low population density parts of the US. But from a self-defense point of view, do you really need a semi-automatic? Wouldn't

by tsycho 14y ago

That's a valid point, especially in low population density parts of the US. But from a self-defense point of view, do you really need a semi-automatic? Wouldn't a normal revolver suffice? Furthermore, for places where the population density is high, and the number of police per square mile is reasonable, and the law and order situation is generally good (most US cities would probably fit the above?), then is there any real need for normal civilians to have easy access to guns, at least anything that can be used for mass firing?

clarky07 14y ago
Do you know much about guns? (not trying to be an ass, honest question). The difference between a revolver and a semi-auto is very minimal. This guy could have easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with a revolver. There is definitely a need for civilians to have guns. First off, this sounds cliche, but when you need a gun seconds count and police are minutes away. You aren't going to stop a home invasion, rape, mugging, etc with police. 0 chance. They might catch them, but they can't stop it from happening. If someone comes into my church and starts shooting people, me being there and armed can save lives. Calling 911 means you probably have at least 5-10 minutes before a response (in the case of this tragedy, I think I read it was 6 minutes before there was even a 911 call made. Wouldn't have been better if the principal or a security officer had a gun in a safe in the office?) Finally, self defense is really only the practical day to day reason for keeping guns in the hands of civilians. Liberty and freedom are the bigger reasons. Saying it doesn't matter because the govt has bombs and jets is disingenuous. If the govt decides to drop atom bombs all over the country this discussion is irrelevant. It's much more likely a conflict would be with guns. I'll leave you with this quote from Hitler: ”The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police.” ~Adolph Hitler
- bambax 14y ago
  > This guy could have easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with a revolver This is not true. The gun he used (a .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle) allows for rapid fire and has magazines. The time it takes to reload a revolver would not have allowed the same number of casualties. Every victim was hit by more than one bullet (up to eleven bullets for one of the victims). A revolver usually lets you shoot just 6 times before you need to reload. Interesting animation http://www.bushmaster.com/anatomy_bushmaster.asp http://www.bushmaster.com/anatomy_bushmaster.asp
  - clarky07 14y ago
    You clearly have no intimate knowledge of guns and how they work, so why do you keep posting as if you do? That's a great animation, but I know how a .223 AR-15 works because I own one and have shot it many times. As it happens, I also know how a revolver works whereas you apparently haven't seen that animation. The revolver would not have put 11 rounds in each kid, but it doesn't need to. 1-2 works just fine. The magazine for the AR-15 generally holds 10, 20, or 30 rounds and in this case it was almost certainly 30. If he did 11 per kid, lets round to 10, that's 3 kids per reload. 2 bullets is more than enough, so the 6 shot revolver can also do 3 per reload. There is something called a speedloader for revolvers, which is just slightly slower than a magazine to reload. This guy [1] while not really going too fast, reloaded three times and shot 24 well aimed bullets in 45 seconds (starting at the 1:15 mark). I'd say that qualifies as many many round in under a minute with only a few pounds of pressure. The second video [2], while obviously a world class shooter, shot 12 rounds, all on target, with a reload in the middle in less than 3 seconds. This person could have very easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with the revolver. You just didn't know it until now. Unless having 10 bullets in a kid somehow makes it worse, this could have definitely happened with a revolver or 2 instead of an AR and a few semi-auto handguns. [1] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9Lahi-TqQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9Lahi-TqQ [2] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-tFQ1H4Awg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-tFQ1H4Awg
    - bambax 14y ago
      1- While I'm certainly no expert in guns and «gun culture» (something I would take little pride in), I don't know nothing about guns. I can take apart a 1911 .45, in the dark, and put it back together (the top part with the barrel); my father in law use to own guns and took me shooting several times with his Magnum 357; my point is that I have used guns before (didn't enjoy it much though) 2- Much more importantly, the whole «expertise» debate and argument is very illegitimate. This is the same argument finance people use to claim they should not be regulated: «you don't understand! it's complicated!» It may be complicated but we're still the ones called to clean up your mess. That entitles us to have an opinion. My opinion is that guns actually kill people. After a particularly gruesome mass shooting in the 90s, Australia passed vey tough gun control laws, with a buyback program. No further mass shooting happened since, and criminality didn't increase. Food for thought.

by tsycho 14y ago

clarky07 14y ago

Do you know much about guns? (not trying to be an ass, honest question). The difference between a revolver and a semi-auto is very minimal. This guy could have easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with a revolver. There is definitely a need for civilians to have guns. First off, this sounds cliche, but when you need a gun seconds count and police are minutes away. You aren't going to stop a home invasion, rape, mugging, etc with police. 0 chance. They might catch them, but they can't stop it from happening. If someone comes into my church and starts shooting people, me being there and armed can save lives. Calling 911 means you probably have at least 5-10 minutes before a response (in the case of this tragedy, I think I read it was 6 minutes before there was even a 911 call made. Wouldn't have been better if the principal or a security officer had a gun in a safe in the office?) Finally, self defense is really only the practical day to day reason for keeping guns in the hands of civilians. Liberty and freedom are the bigger reasons. Saying it doesn't matter because the govt has bombs and jets is disingenuous. If the govt decides to drop atom bombs all over the country this discussion is irrelevant. It's much more likely a conflict would be with guns. I'll leave you with this quote from Hitler: ”The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non ["something essential" lit. "without which not"] for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let’s not have any native militia or police.” ~Adolph Hitler

bambax 14y ago
> This guy could have easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with a revolver This is not true. The gun he used (a .223 Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle) allows for rapid fire and has magazines. The time it takes to reload a revolver would not have allowed the same number of casualties. Every victim was hit by more than one bullet (up to eleven bullets for one of the victims). A revolver usually lets you shoot just 6 times before you need to reload. Interesting animation http://www.bushmaster.com/anatomy_bushmaster.asp http://www.bushmaster.com/anatomy_bushmaster.asp
- clarky07 14y ago
  You clearly have no intimate knowledge of guns and how they work, so why do you keep posting as if you do? That's a great animation, but I know how a .223 AR-15 works because I own one and have shot it many times. As it happens, I also know how a revolver works whereas you apparently haven't seen that animation. The revolver would not have put 11 rounds in each kid, but it doesn't need to. 1-2 works just fine. The magazine for the AR-15 generally holds 10, 20, or 30 rounds and in this case it was almost certainly 30. If he did 11 per kid, lets round to 10, that's 3 kids per reload. 2 bullets is more than enough, so the 6 shot revolver can also do 3 per reload. There is something called a speedloader for revolvers, which is just slightly slower than a magazine to reload. This guy [1] while not really going too fast, reloaded three times and shot 24 well aimed bullets in 45 seconds (starting at the 1:15 mark). I'd say that qualifies as many many round in under a minute with only a few pounds of pressure. The second video [2], while obviously a world class shooter, shot 12 rounds, all on target, with a reload in the middle in less than 3 seconds. This person could have very easily committed exactly the same horrific tragedy with the revolver. You just didn't know it until now. Unless having 10 bullets in a kid somehow makes it worse, this could have definitely happened with a revolver or 2 instead of an AR and a few semi-auto handguns. [1] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9Lahi-TqQ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EC9Lahi-TqQ [2] - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-tFQ1H4Awg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-tFQ1H4Awg
  - bambax 14y ago
    1- While I'm certainly no expert in guns and «gun culture» (something I would take little pride in), I don't know nothing about guns. I can take apart a 1911 .45, in the dark, and put it back together (the top part with the barrel); my father in law use to own guns and took me shooting several times with his Magnum 357; my point is that I have used guns before (didn't enjoy it much though) 2- Much more importantly, the whole «expertise» debate and argument is very illegitimate. This is the same argument finance people use to claim they should not be regulated: «you don't understand! it's complicated!» It may be complicated but we're still the ones called to clean up your mess. That entitles us to have an opinion. My opinion is that guns actually kill people. After a particularly gruesome mass shooting in the 90s, Australia passed vey tough gun control laws, with a buyback program. No further mass shooting happened since, and criminality didn't increase. Food for thought.