Aurora Colorado Violence

How many more could he have shot with an AR-15 before being subdued. Just curious.

What definition of "dangerous" are you using that you use it in such a blanket, general way? Sure, a desert eagle will cause more harm round for round than a .22 rifle, but that same .22 rifle with hollow points will fuck your shit up way more than a Desert Eagle with standard rounds. So to say "handguns are more dangerous than rifles" outright simply due to how many people are killed by them is dishonest at best. I think you also should take into consideration the range of a weapon. What is the effective range of a Glock vs an AR15, M16 or M4 (or any other rifle)? If your definition of "dangerous" is sheer volume of murders by a weapon, then you must also consider how easy it is to carry/conceal a pistol vs. a rifle.I am in the middle on gun ownership as I haven't put much thought into it. I can't own one, so I really don't give a shit one way or another if you can or not. I was just trying to point out what I see as a flaw in your usage of the term "dangerous". Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

I don't see how he could have fired any faster with the AR-15 than with the Glock, but he certainly could have fired more rounds with a 100-round box magazine than the 30-round magazine he had in the Glock. Loughner was subdued when he stopped to reload.The clear implication is that rounds-between-reloads is the operative factor in these mass shootings, not rounds fired per minute.

I used to shoot competitively and was pretty fair (certainly not great), but what you describe is not anything unusual. Even with an old wheel gun using moon clips or speed loaders getting off several hundred rounds would take probably far less time than you mentioned.As I said, even today as old as I am and much much slower than I used to be I would not doubt that I could do that.

Number of people killed per class of weapon. Handguns kill far, far more Americans than rifles. I don't see how it's dishonest. I defined how I was using the term back in Message 64. Nobody has put forward any competing criterion. And look, this isn't Call of Duty or whatever where we can rate weapons by their DPS. It's fine for you to believe that an AR-15 is more dangerous than a Glock 19, but if you expect me to agree you need to present some reasonable criterion to support that opinion. Contra Brit, not every opinion is created equal. I suspect they'll both shoot all the way to the back of a movie theater, at least. Agreed. I think the fact that you can put a handgun in a pocket makes it a lot more dangerous than an AR-15. I'm not a gun owner, either, and I only care that demonstratively dangerous people aren't allowed to own guns. But the thing is - not everyone who does these things has a demonstrable history of violence. Some guys just seem to be fine, if a little weird, right up to the point where they shoot up their workplace. That said, I think we may eventually uncover some uniquely American environmental factor - something in the air or water that they don't have in other places. You know, a decade or two after they stopped putting lead in paint, violent crimes had fallen by more than half.

So handguns are more dangerous than rifles, but only if you don't factor on other countries or other time periods? But you haven't made that distinction, have you? You've simply repeated "handguns are more dangerous than rifles" with no qualifiers. Could you point to the sentence in that post where you defined your usage of dangerous to mean "danger=causing more statistical deaths"? I should like to use the dictionary definition: Nowhere in that definition does it come close to saying what you are. I'm simply saying that you are categorically wrong to just say "handguns are more dangerous than rifles" without using any sort of qualifications. Like I said, not all handguns are created equal and not all rifles are created equal. A .50 caliber sniper rifle is a fuck of a lot more "dangerous" than a Walther PPK Conversely, a Desert Eagle is far more "dangerous" than a .22 caliber rifle (you choose the make and model, I'm no gun nut). There are more factors to take into consideration than "handgun or rifle" when saying how dangerous they are.By your logic, black people from Compton are more dangerous than white people from the Hamptons. Is it statistically accurate? Yes, if you count how many black people from Compton murder people compared to how many white people from The Hamptons murder people. Even though the topic is pertaining to a movie theater, you haven't been saying "in a movie theater, handguns are more dangerous than rifles", have you? No, you are flat out saying "handguns are more dangerous than rifles" with your own definition of "dangerous". A definition which, taken a step further, could be used to say that handguns are more dangerous than Sherman Tanks or RPG's or landmines.

The dictionary definition is just a recourse to other words that all mean "danger." It's no guide for how we should go about measuring the danger, and I explained my criterion for it back in Message 64. It's just a flat-out lie to say that I didn't. But I've given the qualification. But I'm not comparing any one rifle to any one handgun. I'm comparing rifles to handguns. How so? Why should I believe that caliber is a proxy for "danger"?

Prevalence of guns is maybe not uniquely American, but it is characteristic. I'm not sure on the exact numbers, but I've heard there are enough to go around so that everyone could have one. That would make it more easy for both 'demonstratively dangerous people' and people who aspire become 'demonstratively dangerous', to acquire a firearm.Granted - if I was living in such an environment, I could see the merit it owning a firearm. In the environment I'm in, with maybe 1 gun per 50 people (many of which (the legal ones) are shotguns and single shot rifles and very very few handguns), I don't feel the need quite so much. I'm not attempting to refute you, but does that take into account that the frequency of ownership? I mean, handguns may have killed more people than TCDD, may have killed more than nitro-glycerine may even have killed more than uranium bombs. Likewise asthma has probably killed more people than ebola.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Yea America 88.8 Guns per 100 people the first in the world in guns second place held by Serbia 58.2 guns per 100 people, Slovenia 47th place 13.5 guns per 100 people, and most of these guns are used for hunting.But hey what would the worlds leading gun manufacturing industry do if you make stricter laws about gun ownership their CEO's might have to sell their second private jet, and we wouldn't want that.

You shouldn't, An AR15 shoots 223 Remington or 5.56x45, a Ruger 10-22 shoots 22 Long Rifle rimfire, Both are 22 caliber bullets. Velocity and shape of the bullets are the main differences.22LR--
40 gr (2.6 g) Solid 1,080 ft/s (330 m/s) 104 ftlbf (141 J)223 Remington--
36 gr (2.3 g) JHP 3,750 ft/s (1,140 m/s) 1,124 ftlbf (1,524 J)22LR will not pass through body armor, 223 will pass through armor. (most body armor have provisions for add-on ballistic plates for chest and back that can defeat some high power rifle rounds.)The difference between a 50 caliber BMG and a 50 caliber pistol round is similar.Magazine capacity is the main difference between my 308 hunting rifle and my FN FAL, both are semi-auto. The Fn FAL would be the weapon of choice for combat, for no other reason than magazine capacity being they both shoot the same round. Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

So how much did you contributed to the verbiage in the Assault Weapons Ban? If you have the experience, why was it written so poorly?I don't doubt there are people with experience who "want tougher gun laws", I was talking about the Assault Weapons Ban and how stupidly shitty it was written.So how, exactly, do you want the gun laws to be tougher? Laws are specific and explicit so you can't just say you want them "tougher". That's completely vacuous. Yeah, they're really good guns, its no doubt that people want them. Being a good gun isn't a reason to outlaw it. In the US, things aren't outlawed until proven legal. I don't have to justify why it should be legal, you have to justify why it should be illegal.Explosive devices are not firearms and are way more dangerous and are oulawed for legitimate reasons. The AR-15 does not share the same qualities so it shouldn't be illegal in the same way. But firearms are...

Honestly, from reading your posts you do seem very ill informed. I'll point out some of the instances: Besideds hunting and sport, there's protection, recreation, entertainment, and aesthetics. It has nothing to do with "need". Things are legal until they're criminalized, and we don't maintain legality based on necessity. In my state, its illegal to bring a firearm to a facility where you know alcohol is going to be consumed. You can legally carry guns aroung on your hip in Missouri, but you know what? Its illegal to carry a gun within the city limits of Saint Louis. So just because you can do somethign somewhere doesn't mean you can do it everywhere. Besideds hunting and sport, there's protection, recreation, entertainment, and aesthetics. Disgusting. Free societies don't have to justify their freedoms, others have to justify removing them. Really? Are you an originalist? Do you apply that to the whole thing, no freedom of speech on the internet?, or is this just a case of you not liking guns and being biased?

What is your point? What does me 'contributing' to the Assault Weapons Ban have to do with the price of tea in China? I was 19 years old when it was enacted and with less than a year in the Navy. If you make accusations back them up with arguments. Not just baseless accusations. All legislation is incomplete and have room for improvement. Again, please be specific in how you think it was shitty so we can discuss what needs to be fixed. Not allowing people to buy arsenols of guns and ammo with little to no regulation or tracking. It is easier for me to go down and buy a highly lethal assault rifle and 6000 rds of ammo than to buy over-the counter drugs. Thats ridiculous.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

I really doubt that. An AR-15 is not an "assault rifle". Even the AK-47 that you can buy without getting a special license is not an "assault rifle".Exactly which over the counter drugs require a complete criminal background check, buying a Tax Stamp for each weapon and submitting a current set of fingerprints?

Short of not selling guns at all then no amount of laws and regulations would have stopped the killer from buying a gun and bullets legally.I have always thought it would be easier to place tighter control on ammunition and materials needed to reload your own, this could limit the amount you buy over a period of time and or make bullets expensive (tax them?). You wouldn't have to do it to all bullets either, and it would apply to all current stockpiles of ammo now available.I wouldn't mind paying more for the ammo I will hunt deer with this year, I will shoot less than 40 rounds between zeroing in my rifle and hunting, there is no need for me to buy 1000 rds. People who competitively shoot could buy a permit to buy in bulk maybe.Just a few thoughts....