One way to help prevent mass murders

Yes. A government taking away "We the People's" rights is tyranny. Do you know about the Federalist Papers, which were the basis for much of the Constitution?

 

Nope. I am a student of the past, which clearly YOU are not. The 2nd Amendment was so that "We the People" would have the same arm as Light Infantryman to protect us against tyrannical governments, including our own. That does not mean tanks, jets, and carriers. It means something equivalent to the M14, which we don't even come close to, but an AR15 is not a bad start.

 

Why do you assume such?

 

Wrong again. They know they can get away with shooting for a period of time before the police show up.

 

Sorry General, you will still lose......badly.

 

If our government ever became Authoritarian where the Bill of Rights was under attack and the courts allowed it, I would be all in.

“We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” ― Benjamin Franklin

“They tell us, sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.” ― Patrick Henry

“Nevertheless, to the persecution and tyranny of his cruel ministry we will not tamely submit -- appealing to Heaven for the justice of our cause, we determine to die or be free.” ― Joseph Warren
​

Lose or not, I would not be the coward to forfeit the Freedoms and Liberties so many before me fought and died for. It's a shame so many on the Left would just submit, or even support an Authoritarian regime.

 

Hey, Captain America, settle down. First, no one said submit but the fact is unless there is an organized "resistance" it would be a slaughter. You seem like one of the first to go down but know that I'll be behind you the whole way.
"What are we fightin for, don't ask me I don't give a damn......."
The big question is if troops would fire on their own civilians. They did at Kent State and for what? Has anything changed? Would the military be split? If so, there would be a chance. If not.....none.

 

Oh god here we go again, lets try to regain some modicum of common sense. You live in a country where cooperate profit rules everything and you only have as much freedom as your bank balance can afford. You should have worked that out by now.

“Nevertheless, to the persecution and tyranny of his cruel ministry we will not tamely submit -- appealing to Heaven for the justice of our cause, we determine to die or be free.”
Joseph Warren.
Fine words but they were not meant for the Native Americans who were the owners of the land he lived in or for the sixty seven slaves he owned.
Sound bites are the orator’s tools but without the action to support them they are meaningless.
As for taking over the government from the politicians I have nothing to say except-- Dream on.

 

Bullshit. I have a friend who lives out of his amazing van on the California Central Coast spear fishing, surfing, and canoeing to his life's content and anyone can make that move, even with a family. It's a matter of going for it or not. It can easily be done. He lives off collecting firewood from downed trees and selling it.

 

Then why don't they attack the front gate at military bases and police stations.

 

If selling firewood fits into your wish for freedom, go for it. Makes a touch more sense than taking on the might of the US services with your pop gun

 

This is a meaningless difference often brought up by the NRA and pro-gun advocates based upon the functionality of full automatic v semiautomatic selection modes on the M-16 or typical assault rifle.

Functionality of the assault rifle:

The use of full automatic on the M-16 is for fire suppression during a tactical retreat. The high volume of fire causes the enemy to take cover and when they're taking cover they're not shooting at you. In combat with a squad of six soldiers two would be firing at the enemy with full automatic while two would retreat a few yards and two would reload, Then the two that have reloaded would fire to suppress the enemy while the two that just finished firing would retreat and the other two reloaded. It's a step by step process for retreat where no enemy, that have taken cover, are expected to be hit by the shooters.

During an attack where the purpose is to kill and wound as many of the enemy as possible in the shortest amount of time the semiautomatic function is used. It provides for the maximum number of casualties by the enemy in the shortest amount of time. The M-16 is designed for easy use to bring to bear on the enemy with a high degree of accuracy at short to intermediate ranges (e.g. 20-50 meters) in "point shooting" where the firearm is not aimed by using the sights. Point, shoot, kill the enemy.

When it comes to the design of the assault rifle and killing people it's all about the design of the firearm, including the ammunition used, it's always about it's use in the semiautomatic mode. The AR-15 and the M-16 are functionally identical when it comes to killing people in combat and mass shootings because both use the semiautomatic mode for maximum effectiveness.

The NRA and pro-gun advocates seem to take pride in understanding the functionality of firearms so why do they constantly bring up this functional difference that has absolutely no meaning when it comes to the identical functionality of the AR-15 and M-16 in killing people in both combat and in typical mass shootings where the fully automatic mode is irrelevant.

Note: There are some firearms that only have a fully automatic function that are used to kill the enemy but they're designed differently than a tactical assault rifle.

The Las Vegas shooting where assault rifles were used was an exceptional case. A bump stock was used to simulate the fully automatic function but the target was a mass of people at a considerable distance and the shooter had multiple AR-15 type firearms preloaded with large capacity magazines. In Las Vegas the number of misses was extremely high because fully automatic wastes a lot of ammunition. So there were high casualties in a relatively short period of time but it took an extremely large amount of ammunition to accomplish that.

 

Mass murderers, in a general context (e.g. not those looking to kill co-workers or family members), look for target rich environments and they have committed mass murder inside of military bases and facilities and if they could find a target rich environment inside of a police station there would be mass murders inside of police stations.

 

Thats not their only intention, or they would be attacking gun shows and shooting ranges.

Their 'modifications' tend to focus around avoiding other people with guns long enough to achieve a high body count.

 

The weapons used in these crimes had no fully automatic function. None. Semi-auto is not the same thing and is not used for suppressive fire. No, the M-16 and AR-15 are objectively not functionally identical. You seem to think semi-auto and fully auto are the same thing. They aren't. There's a reason both options are selectable on the M-16. Think on why.

 

Fails maths 101

 

“Suicide by cop”

Common

 

((((((((((((((((((((((Sigh))))))))))))))))

 

Just like the majority of the Western world, just limit weapons and access to those weapons that are available to cause mass shootings. Not rocket science is it.

 

No, mass murderers in a general context choose a target where their victims have no ability to resist them. This means they're the only ones with a gun.

And yes, military bases have been attacked from the inside by military members.

The Ft Hood shooter, for example. Where did he choose as his target? A mental health office inside the base where no weapons were allowed.

 

Generally most of the troops on army posts and air force bases do not have access to loaded weapons. It is usually limited to the military police.

 

Yes, but ground units often do. On CPEN for example ground units will convoy out somewhere on base with weapons and ammo for live fire exercises.

You're not going to see a mass shooter attack MARSOC during live fire drills.

 

Most of the troops you see on post or on base do not have easy access to loaded weapons. There are a few exceptions, but usually a shooter can count on there being no weapons.

 

I'm very aware.

Point was, the Ft. Hood shooter chose an area of the base that not only was generally restricted from having weapons, but SPECIFICALLY restricted from any type of weapons by nature of it being a mental health facility.

A shooter is ALWAYS going to attack groups of people who have no ability to defend themselves.

The only exception might be, for example, if some lunatic was trying to take out a specific person like a judge or something, and even then they probably wouldn't mount a full offensive on a federal building to get to the judge.

They'd try to get them outside or at home.

 

Fully automatic mode, that's available on military assault rifles only, is for fire suppression and that's not a necessary function during a mass shooting. Fully automatic mode, when it comes to killing/maiming victims is generally a waste of ammunition.

Semi automatic mode, that both the civilian and military versions have, is used for killing/maiming the maximum number of victims in the shortest amount of time. A fairly competent marksman can kill/maim a different victim with every single round fired at a rate of over one per second.

There's no difference whatsoever between an M-16 and an AR-15 when it comes to killing people.