Mass Shootings in America Thread · General Discussion Forum

Robtard Senor Member

Yep, it's the reason why you previously tried to label the LV shooting with the highest kill count of 58 as an "outlier" and shouldn't factor when I asked if that could have been done with handguns and/or shotguns. Cos you're honest here.

Silent Master Senior Member

It is an outlier, I still counted it though. The non AR death toll is still higher. both in mass shootings and murders is general.

Bashar Teg Senior Mentat

Originally posted by Surtur
Uh no, what I'm saying is it is a long and expensive process getting a fully automatic weapon *legally*. Keep up.

so gun laws do work, then? yippee!

Firefly218 Restricted

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
so gun laws do work, then? yippee!

lol

Robtard Senor Member

The NRA twins really screwed the dog and their previous arguments with that one

Silent Master Senior Member

dadudemon is a NRA twin?

Robtard Senor Member

Hurrdurr

Silent Master Senior Member

DDM was the one that brought up fully automatic weapons and Surt is the one you were arguing with about it. so those were the only two you could mean. unless you were being dishonest again and claiming that firefly's point about fully-automatic weapon somehow effected my argument.

Bashar Teg Senior Mentat

did we ever go over the stats for massacres involving fully automatic weapons?

Silent Master Senior Member

I think the last one was in 1988 and the shooter was a cop.

darthgoober Senior Member

Originally posted by Silent Master
I think the last one was in 1988 and the shooter was a cop.

I'd wager that's because things like gang wars and drive bys aren't taken into account. There are still a bunch of fully automatic weapons on the streets that get used in mass shootings, it's just that people use compartmentalization to say they don't count in determining whether or not the laws have been effective.

Silent Master Senior Member

Originally posted by darthgoober
I'd wager that's because things like gang wars and drive bys aren't taken into account. There are still a bunch of fully automatic weapons on the streets that get used in mass shootings, it's just that people use compartmentalization to say they don't count in determining whether or not the laws have been effective.

If you can find the numbers, I'll be happy to take a look at them.

darthgoober Senior Member

Originally posted by Silent Master
If you can find the numbers, I'll be happy to take a look at them.

I've looked but it's hard to track gang activity, especially drive bys because residents of those areas aren't exactly forthcoming when answering police questions. In the last 80 years or so there's only been something like 2 deaths by LEGAL fully automatic weapons, but as far as I can tell no one's going to any great lengths to track mass shootings by illegal, unregistered weapons. To be fair though, unless you can catch the guy it's hard to officially confirm that the gun being used was fully automatic, survivors are typically too panicked to count shots per second per shooter.

Silent Master Senior Member

Very true.

One thing we can say for sure though, making fully automatic weapons extremely hard to legally purchase in no way stopped mass shootings.

dadudemon Senior Member

Originally posted by Silent Master
Because it's very difficult and expensive to get fully-automatic weapons.
Think about this for a second.
Shotgun w/30 round drum and 2 9mm handguns w/100 round drums in the Pulse nightclub. how does that sound?

that would be quite effective, yes. But it would be heavier as there are more rounds.

It would be better to just carry enough for an MP7A1 - 5 magazines (6 total), 40 round capacity.

But why are we talking about maximum killing power? Oh, right. Why don't mass shooters use weapons that are clearly much better at killing lots of people very quickly?

Seems if a person wanted to kill people very quickly, they'd get better at it.

I am certain gangs shoot each other with fully automatic weapons. Not obtained legally.

I don't know where I was going with this.

Silent Master Senior Member

Originally posted by dadudemon
that would be quite effective, yes. But it would be heavier as there are more rounds.
It would be better to just carry enough for an MP7A1 - 5 magazines (6 total), 40 round capacity.
But why are we talking about maximum killing power? Oh, right. Why don't mass shooters use weapons that are clearly much better at killing lots of people very quickly?
Seems if a person wanted to kill people very quickly, they'd get better at it.
I am certain gangs shoot each other with fully automatic weapons. Not obtained legally.
I don't know where I was going with this.

A bit heavier, but not too bad. People just want to ban the AR style rifles because they look scary and scary things make them unable to think rationally.

Surtur Restricted

Armed civilian in Texas halts man’s violent crime spree

Nice.

Surtur Restricted

Congressional Candidate ‘Destroys’ AR-15 in Political Stunt | Accidentally Creates Illegal Firearm

YouTube video

Lol oh leftists...

I doubt she'll face ANY actual consequences for what she did, but it does show these people are f*cking clueless.

Oh and LOL@ Emma Gonzalez saying it is harder to make plans with friends for the weekend than it is to buy an automatic or semi automatic weapon. Lol, same girl leftists thought was intelligent. Same one.

Sin I AM Madame Mort

interestin

Originally posted by Silent Master
A bit heavier, but not too bad. People just want to ban the AR style rifles because they look scary and scary things make them unable to think rationally.

they are scary. any idiot can get one

Silent Master Senior Member

Do you check under your bed for an AR-15 before going to sleep?