I'd add that as a lone gunman, on foot, looking to kill a bunch of people, a semi-automatic would be deadlier than a full auto anyway. You're limited by the amount of ammo you can carry (lead is heavy). Semi-auto will give a higher percentage of shots on target. It's more efficient killing.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
4 dead in Colorado shooting
- Thread starter nynt9
- Start date
- Status
I'd add that as a lone gunman, on foot, looking to kill a bunch of people, a semi-automatic would be deadlier than a full auto anyway. You're limited by the amount of ammo you can carry (lead is heavy). Semi-auto will give a higher percentage of shots on target. It's more efficient killing.
Actually, it is fine to make that comparison. I don't agree with it, but it can be shot down even if you accept it. The fact is that automotive companies have been held to a standard to make their cars as safe as they possibly can. Gun manufacturers make their guns as lethal as legally allowed.
CadetMahoney
Member
RIP
Interested in the minds of the people who do shootings. Like if there are any correlations or they just have a down and out life and decide the best way to go out is to shoot random people/classroom because it's "a thing".
Interested in the minds of the people who do shootings. Like if there are any correlations or they just have a down and out life and decide the best way to go out is to shoot random people/classroom because it's "a thing".
RuinerPrime
Member
i live in Colorado Springs. Pretty crazy.
I don't get why people think full-auto weapons are bad. Hear me out. Most people are moving away from fully automatic weapons, our own military only uses them really for belt fed weapons because in a normal portable weapon with "only" 30 rounds or so you're wasting tons of rounds. They figured this shit out long ago. Don't get me wrong, a fully automatic weapon is fantastic for firing into a large crowd, covering a choke point or providing cover for someone else to move but considering most gunmen are mobile a fully automatic weapon translates to a lot of stray rounds. If the reasons the US military moved away from fully-automatic weapons are to be trusted it's completely possible and reasonable to assume there's a high chance less people would have been killed if the gunman had a fully automatic ar-15. More missed shots, more shots taken than wanted, it all translates to more ammo used faster which means the gunman would have to make more magazine changes, faster which means ultimately more openings to take him down and assuming he carried the same amount of ammo regardless of whether the weapon was semi or fully automatic that he'd flat run out of ammo faster.
So this assault weapons ban to me here is a weird thing to champion. Yes, I don't think a civilian needs a fully automatic weapon for self defense but stop and think about this for a second. The US Army decided way back that fully automatic weapons for their soldiers were a liability. That they went through ammo faster, missed more often and that, frankly, fully automatic weapons inhibited their soldier's chance to kill the enemy. They deduced that not being fully automatic was actually more deadly and moved to semi-automatic as the norm. Think about the first M-14s and M-16s and now look at modern M-16s and M-4's, they've moved from fully-automatic to semi-automatic with the option of a three round burst. For a reason. Yes your military rifles have a burst mode that fires several rounds per trigger pull as an option but how many people use it? It's the last option on the selector switch not the first.
So this assault weapons ban to me here is a weird thing to champion. Yes, I don't think a civilian needs a fully automatic weapon for self defense but stop and think about this for a second. The US Army decided way back that fully automatic weapons for their soldiers were a liability. That they went through ammo faster, missed more often and that, frankly, fully automatic weapons inhibited their soldier's chance to kill the enemy. They deduced that not being fully automatic was actually more deadly and moved to semi-automatic as the norm. Think about the first M-14s and M-16s and now look at modern M-16s and M-4's, they've moved from fully-automatic to semi-automatic with the option of a three round burst. For a reason. Yes your military rifles have a burst mode that fires several rounds per trigger pull as an option but how many people use it? It's the last option on the selector switch not the first.
Frustrated_me
Member
Dead lives. "Need to protect myself"
So cheap. "4 dead"
Ignorance. "I'm not crazy"
Tragic. "Rinse, repeat"
No hope. "Can't take my gun away"
Selfish. "Fun toy"
The gun owners will never, ever, charge their minds. It must be so frustrating in trying to reason with them. They simply will not agree that guns kill.
So cheap. "4 dead"
Ignorance. "I'm not crazy"
Tragic. "Rinse, repeat"
No hope. "Can't take my gun away"
Selfish. "Fun toy"
The gun owners will never, ever, charge their minds. It must be so frustrating in trying to reason with them. They simply will not agree that guns kill.
astroturfing
Member
it's kind of weird to love a tool.. i mean do you love a hammer or a screwdriver? and guns are supposed to be just tools right? and not a fetish.
But the deer hunting though...
Well cars are tools too and I love my car. People have passion for stuff.
Messofanego
Banned
But don't you just love just the potential lethality of it? Shoot an AR 15 at a pumpkin and see it get shattered. Now imagine a human head. I just love that idea of killing the shit out of something or someone if they bothered me. Yesterday, it was an animal that I wasn't even going to eat because I'm not in some third world country where I have to hunt for my food. I just like them to go down, collapse and become lifeless. Today, I've chosen more risky targets, but they just annoy me so much everyday. I should have gone to a therapist about my anger but they're expensive and I dont want to get hopped up on drugs. Big Pharma is poisoning our people to become zombies. How would talking cure me, anyway? I don't care if I get shot down because at least I will have gotten rid of the scum of the earth. This is what you get when you threaten to take away our guns because of some people getting killed in some shootings who probably deserved it. 'MURICA!
slow clap. That was Trainspotting monologue's level
completely agree with that also. There's no reason why they shouldn't at least try to mitigate the potential slaughtering, but retrofitting it into the oceanic mass of existing weapons is impossible, so yeah
America is never going to get rid of guns. There would be a civil war if they tried
completely agree with that also. There's no reason why they shouldn't at least try to mitigate the potential slaughtering, but retrofitting it into the oceanic mass of existing weapons is impossible, so yeah
America is never going to get rid of guns. There would be a civil war if they tried
Bornstellar
Member
I posted this before but why not post a second time.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/10/19/thresholds-of-violence
Eye opening read. Thanks for the share man.
BattleMonkey
Member
So many complaints about full auto when none of these shootings have involved full auto weapons. They are already regulated heavily and the cost and work needed pretty much is a deterrent in itself. Lot of other big problems with how guns are regulated or not regulated than anything related to full auto
I feel handguns are much worse.
kame-sennin
Member
It probably doesn't. But, assuming that a full repeal of the 2nd amendment is politically unfeasible today - precluding any attempt at a total gun ban - what would a law that bans the AR-15 look like? To be more specific, what language would lawmakers need to ban the AR-15 that wouldn't ban all other firearms?
I mean they could just ban the ar-15 and be done. It's already been established the second amendment isn't a panacea. However I think the gun violence problem isn't really one that is tied to any one weapon.
Decades? It won't happen in our lifetimes, if ever.
"Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to the unveiling of the brand new AR-15 and a half!" *applause*
"Hey, that looks just like the AR-15. Wasn't that banned?"
"Yes, the AR-15 was banned, But this is the AR-15 and a half!" *applause*
"But it looks just like an AR-15. Isn't it the same thing?"
"Absolutely not! Look, here, it says '15 1/2" Also, here, under the grip, there's a small bump. You won't find that on an AR-15." *applause*
"But it's functionally identical to an AR-15."
"Of course it is. It's a rifle." *applause*
If you're referring to something like a bump fire stock, I have one of those (Fostech Bumpski on AK-47). I'm a little surprised that the ATF approved them, honestly.
That's pretty much what went through my head.
Banning any one particular weapon isn't really an answer.
neurosyphilis
Definitely not an STD, as I'm a pure.
You mean just how people love their Cars, fishing equipment, their bikes, game consoles, and etc. I don't get your point. I don't literally "love" the thing I'm using love/like synonymously here
Secret Character
Member
Now that the dust has settled a little bit, I feel like I need to put my two cents in on this whole thing.
There seem to be a lot of people posting from the outside looking in. The gun culture in Colorado Springs isn't completely unhealthy and the number of responsible firearms owners very greatly outweighs the number of deviant owners. Open carry is a thing here and it isn't like the pictures where folks carry around rifles. You see people with holsters and handguns, very discreet unless you're looking for it.
Members of my family have been involved in pistol instruction here in town and they get such a varied amount of people taking classes. You'll have a retired schoolteacher who wants to know safety for her home. You'll have a banker who wants to know how to properly operate a pistol so he can go to the range with his buddies. "Gun culture" as it's been appropriated by the internet is in full effect here.
We have several well known shooting ranges in town and you'll see fairly high attendance on almost any given day. You'll see a decent number of AR-15s, too. They aren't automatic, and they aren't nearly as menacing as some other firearms you can legally purchase. Above all, safety is what is taught and practiced at all of the ranges in town and the operators of such facilities are very strict about it.
Now, I personally don't own a firearm, but my roommate does. We live blocks away from where this shooting took place and it's very unnerving. Downtown Colorado Springs does have a homeless problem, but that isn't the issue. Legal weed and the military aren't the issue either. In this case, it was one maniac who happen to have access to a rifle.
The amount of gun violence in town is very low compared to other cities with similar populations, despite there being more firearms owners per capita. If a gun wasn't available to this person, the violence would have still occurred, I'm sure. The gun isn't the issue here, and people need to look at who is pulling the trigger instead of blaming the weapon.
There seem to be a lot of people posting from the outside looking in. The gun culture in Colorado Springs isn't completely unhealthy and the number of responsible firearms owners very greatly outweighs the number of deviant owners. Open carry is a thing here and it isn't like the pictures where folks carry around rifles. You see people with holsters and handguns, very discreet unless you're looking for it.
Members of my family have been involved in pistol instruction here in town and they get such a varied amount of people taking classes. You'll have a retired schoolteacher who wants to know safety for her home. You'll have a banker who wants to know how to properly operate a pistol so he can go to the range with his buddies. "Gun culture" as it's been appropriated by the internet is in full effect here.
We have several well known shooting ranges in town and you'll see fairly high attendance on almost any given day. You'll see a decent number of AR-15s, too. They aren't automatic, and they aren't nearly as menacing as some other firearms you can legally purchase. Above all, safety is what is taught and practiced at all of the ranges in town and the operators of such facilities are very strict about it.
Now, I personally don't own a firearm, but my roommate does. We live blocks away from where this shooting took place and it's very unnerving. Downtown Colorado Springs does have a homeless problem, but that isn't the issue. Legal weed and the military aren't the issue either. In this case, it was one maniac who happen to have access to a rifle.
The amount of gun violence in town is very low compared to other cities with similar populations, despite there being more firearms owners per capita. If a gun wasn't available to this person, the violence would have still occurred, I'm sure. The gun isn't the issue here, and people need to look at who is pulling the trigger instead of blaming the weapon.
Oh, the classic straw man. If this person didn't have a gun, let's say he'd somehow still go on a rampage. He would be a lot less likely to kill 3 people if he didn't have a gun, and cops could use no lethal techniques to take him down since he is less of a risk. 4 lives could have been saved.
A maniac with a gun versus a maniac without a gun are capable of different levels of damage. Ok, let's look at who pulled the trigger. How could we have known he was going to lose it? No one is a killer until they kill someone. But if you restrict their access to efficient tools designed to kill people en masse, then you reduce the damage any one killer can do to society. Gun safety training also means nothing if a person is intending to kill someone. You can prevent accidental deaths with training (though you can also prevent that by taking guns out of the equation to begin with), but you can prevent intentional murder with training.
JimJamJones
Member
My parents are in Colorado Springs right now, and I just found out that they weren't that far from where this happened.
This whole gun issue is far beyond being a joke at this point. I don't even know what to call it anymore.
This whole gun issue is far beyond being a joke at this point. I don't even know what to call it anymore.
Secret Character
Member
Call it a straw man argument, but culturally, the acceptance of guns in town is something that you can't change. Shootings make news, but the other types of violence found in this city are widespread. Domestic violence is crazy high here as is sexual violence, but those don't make news because guns aren't involved.
With as much that goes on and as many firearms are available, you would think there would be more shootings, no? A lot of why we don't have much gun violence here is because of education, open carry, concealed carry, and a very heavy military presence.
How is domestic violence relevant to this thread? It's just an attempt to derail. You can care about multiple issues simultaneously.
"It's part of our culture" doesn't mean it's not problematic. In fact it's a terrible justification for problematic behavior
racist behavior towards black people was very much part of our culture decades ago, and still is in many ways
Again, how is gun education supposed to stop someone who wants to shoot up a school or whatever from doing so?
Secret Character
Member
You're right, I was deflecting. Sorry about that.
Education can only do so much, and I know this. I don't know of a solution to combat gun violence. Repealing the second amendment isn't really an option and more heavily policed control over ownership and purchasing would get a decent amount of Americans riled up.
I know the culture part also isn't a fair validation, too. I'm simply framing the area that this took place and my own personal experience, since I live here. I just got heated because of how close this whole thing was to me.
PeteZaTheHutt
Member
Classification is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is that ALL guns kill. They are designed to kill. Complaining about how gun control advocates don't understand classification of guns and certain gun terms is nothing but an attempt to distract from the real issue. ALL guns kill. Fuck ALL guns.
You certainly have a right to defend yourself, just not with ridiculously over-efficient killing machines.
NEITHER should be legal. The fact that one is worse than the other is relativistic. BOTH kill. BOTH are bad. BOTH should be illegal. Pointing out that one is worse than the other is irrelevant and serves only as yet another gun enthusiast distraction tactic.
Both kill. Both should be illegal.
Irrelevant. More distraction. ALL guns are killing machines. One being worse than the other is absolutely meaningless when you consider that they both kill efficiently. The more disturbing part of your post, however, is how you flippantly describe an assault rifle (ie- a killing machine) as being "just a semi-auto .238 or 5.56."
But there are worse guns out there. Your move, hippy.
kame-sennin
Member
Are you advocating a total gun ban? If you are, that's fine. If you're arguing for anything less, classification is relevant.
Don't get him started on the many uses of gun oil.
spazchicken
Member
This already exists and it's called the AR-10. It's bigger and more powerful than the AR-15. Just as legal and just as accessible. It is literally as you said, the AR-15 and a half.
.jpg)
Even more powerful than both of these is the 30-06 rifle. Just as legal and just as accessible. Don't let the friendly hunting wood frame fool you. Black tip rounds go through level 3 body armor like a hot knife through butter, which is something that the AR-15 can hardly put a scratch on and the AR-10 can only put a dent in.
I think people need to focus on all firearms and not just the one that's on the news. People also need to educate themselves on weapon types and terminology so they don't sound silly when speaking on such a serious issue.
In the end though, it's all for nothing. People with power to write and change laws on a federal level have been trying to ban guns for decades with no luck and only small victories here and there. If the president could snap his fingers and make guns go away I'm sure he would but even he doesn't have that power.
I have an AR-15 that I built myself. I look at it, practice with it, admire it's design and enjoy shooting it at the range. It's a fascinating piece of machinery and I'm proud that I own it. But at the same time, I'm torn whenever these gun debates pop up because I can't believe I'm allowed to own this. It is crazy that we have these things that can take a whole life with the press of a button (pull of a trigger). Your whole 20, 40, 80 years on this Earth gone from a single flex of a finger.
I don't really know what I'm trying to say with this post. I guess I'm just thinking out loud.
SmackDaddy
Member
You sound like a kid who is scared to get their toy taken.
They have higher muzzle velocities and can penetrate through thin walls and shit. They are also more accurate at a longer range.
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
Can a gun owner please tell me how to differentiate a 'good guy' with a gun from a 'bad guy' with gun before the bullets start flying?
spazchicken
Member
The 'bad guy' is pointing a gun at you while the 'good guy' is pointing his gun at the 'bad guy'?
I don't understand where this question is going or the logic behind it.
What if they were pointing guns at each other? If people need guns, it demonstrate a problem in society where safety and security are not attainable through humility and respect for the fellow man.
I don't think guns or regulations are going to change anytime soon. My roommate now has 30 guns total and over 20,000 rounds of ammo ranging from 9mm to slugs I've seen as thick as your thumb and as long as your middle finger finger. He always talks about penetration and stuff. But whenever you ask him why he needs all those guns there is never a clear answer......ever. There is not a single person that needs that type of fire power and amount of guns. It amazes me that they all constantly buy guns and ammo but they can never give you an answer as to why they all need it.
I'm fucking lost on people who own guns.
I'm fucking lost on people who own guns.
Here is an example. Adam Lanza was a good guy with a gun who bonded with his mother at the shooting range until he became a bad guy with a gun and killed 20 children.
corduroygt
Banned
Any more news about the actual incident? Why did the gunman shoot the victims? Did he know them?
neurosyphilis
Definitely not an STD, as I'm a pure.
This is the dumbest question I've ever seen in my life.
Days like these...
Have a Blessed Day
How so? I honestly cant tell till someone aims at me or bullets start flying and by then its too late.
water_wendi
Water is not wet!
Seems like a really good question to me.
Cop walks into a scene, sees multiple people with their weapons drawn. Who is who?
Mammoth Jones
Member
The good guy shouldn't be walking down the fucking street with their rifle on their back. Or holding it. Unless you see a dead deer in their truck or they are at a shooting range or on property target shooting.
This is absolute bullshit.
Adam Landza was a severely mentally disturbed individual whose mother indulged him in firearms despite knowing he was mentally ill.
I don't like to ever speak ill of the dead but that woman is more responsible to me that Adam was. Adam was obviously psychotic. But she should have known better.
I've seen family members having to get rid of their guns when someone in their household had severe mental illness. Not easy but the only real correct thing to do.
Shit like that needs to be policy and a law. Even in NY the law is that if you live with someone with known mental issues you HAVE to secure your firearms so that they can't have reasonable access.
White guys good patriots. Black kid with BB gun bad guy.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked