How many people can a weapon kill in under a minute before it should be banned?

[TurtleDude]

this poll REALLY sucks because its anonymous. I want to ask those who voted for 10 at what point is a weapon no longer covered by the second amendment? 9 a minute, 11 a minute. 13 a minute

and BTW lots of that depends on the user. a master class shooter is going to get good hits with almost every shot. Your average gang banger or urban cop=lots less. Apparently in Vietnam, it took well over 5,000 rounds for each casualty. Automatic weapon fire is not conducive to high hit ratios. Carlos Hathcock with a bolt action rifle was probably killing an enemy at a rate of 2-3 shots per enemy

 

[Mac77]

A terrorist in a truck killed 20 people recently in less than a minute

then there are bombs such as the one that killed serveral hundred people in Oklahoma City

So its not a simple answer to your question

 

[Tigerace117]

why don't you see if you actually understand this topic

what is the difference between the Rifle SSGT Hathcock used to kill a Chinese General at 900 meters and the one he used to win the Wimbledon Cup at the National Rifle Championships?

what is the difference between the most popular centerfire varmint rifle in the USA and the most popular police sniper rifle

Same rifle (Winchester Model 70, I believe) totally different situations + approaches.

The difference is that Carlos Hathcock was a responsible, sane individual. He didn't going around popping innocent people. In the wrong hands, on the other hand, that technology--- which has improved since Hathcock was in Vietnam, in terms of scopes, etc--- could easily cause a lot of innocent deaths.

 

[Tigerace117]

and crazed killers are an extremely small group of gun owners-see the point?

The point being that people have no trouble supporting the aforementioned idea, despite its inaccuracy?

 

[TurtleDude]

Same rifle (Winchester Model 70, I believe) totally different situations + approaches.

The difference is that Carlos Hathcock was a responsible, sane individual. He didn't going around popping innocent people. In the wrong hands, on the other hand, that technology--- which has improved since Hathcock was in Vietnam, in terms of scopes, etc--- could easily cause a lot of innocent deaths.

well here is your problem. the vast majority of crimes in this country are "deterred" by the consequences of punishment. Gun banners want to impose prior restraint on gun crimes.

you are essentially arguing for a complete gun ban in the USA if you think through what you are saying

99% of the gun owners are sane responsible individuals. and someone who wants to kill many is beyond being deterred by the threat of a gun law sentence since they aren't worried about multiple capital murder convictions either

 

[TurtleDude]

The point being that people have no trouble supporting the aforementioned idea, despite its inaccuracy?

what I am saying is that if you think its wrong to harass, discriminate, ban from travel or immigration, muslims as a whole because a certain segment of that faith engages in jihad, why do you want to oppress the 99% of gun owners who don't commit crimes based on the facade that your oppression is designed to target the one percent who do?

 

[pinqy]

Ok, let's go through this in steps.

I think we can all agree that the 2nd Amendment only applies to personal arms so that rockets, missiles, cannons, howitzers, mortars and other crew-served weapons (such as the M2 .50 cal, or the M240 7.62mm machine guns)

So then the tricky question becomes grenade launchers....the M203, designed solely to be attached to the M16/M4 rifle, the M320 which can be attached or stand alone, and the M32 6-cylinder grenade launcher.
Does the round matter? HE grenades, bad, but what about non-lethal rounds? Or buckshot round (If I did my math right, a 40mm buckshot round would be a 1 gauge shotgun).

Current Federal law classifies grenades as destructive weapons with no sporting use.

I think I can go along with that...anti-personnel weapons only.

But what about fully automatic weapons? I don't know.

 

[TurtleDude]

Ok, let's go through this in steps.

I think we can all agree that the 2nd Amendment only applies to personal arms so that rockets, missiles, cannons, howitzers, mortars and other crew-served weapons (such as the M2 .50 cal, or the M240 7.62mm machine guns)

So then the tricky question becomes grenade launchers....the M203, designed solely to be attached to the M16/M4 rifle, the M320 which can be attached or stand alone, and the M32 6-cylinder grenade launcher.
Does the round matter? HE grenades, bad, but what about non-lethal rounds? Or buckshot round (If I did my math right, a 40mm buckshot round would be a 1 gauge shotgun).

Current Federal law classifies grenades as destructive weapons with no sporting use.

I think I can go along with that...anti-personnel weapons only.

But what about fully automatic weapons? I don't know.

what is more dangerous

an AR 15 that can shoot only semi auto

an M4 with a selector switch


and if cops are issued fully automatic hand held rifles and carbines doesn't that mean that the governmental authorities who issue such firearms have determined that such weapons are useful for the self defense of civilians in a civilian environment?

 

[vegas giants]

what is more dangerous

an AR 15 that can shoot only semi auto

an M4 with a selector switch


and if cops are issued fully automatic hand held rifles and carbines doesn't that mean that the governmental authorities who issue such firearms have determined that such weapons are useful for the self defense of civilians in a civilian environment?

Are the cops highly trained, highly background checked and only allowed to use those guns under close supervision

 

[TurtleDude]

Are the cops highly trained, highly background checked and only allowed to use those guns under close supervision

so you want to argue training. I can prove that I am better trained than 99% of the cops. I can prove you are lying about many cops

so the second amendment turns on training? shall we extend that to voting? public speech.

Cops can carry those weapons on the street and use them for self defense. other civilians cannot even transport those weapons away from their home without all the paperwork for them being present

look-I understand, based on your posts-you know very little about cops, their training etc, but you are only going to make a fool of yourself claiming that the average cop is better trained than the average citizen who owns or desires to own automatic weapons

edit-and doesn't your silly claim apply equally to any firearm? if your attitude is that cops should be the only ones allowed to possess select fire weapons due to "training", why stop with those firearms? where in the constitution does that line get drawn?

civilians are civilians, military is military. cops are no more entitled to military offensive arms than other civilians.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Ok, let's go through this in steps.

I think we can all agree that the 2nd Amendment only applies to personal arms so that rockets, missiles, cannons, howitzers, mortars and other crew-served weapons (such as the M2 .50 cal, or the M240 7.62mm machine guns)

So then the tricky question becomes grenade launchers....the M203, designed solely to be attached to the M16/M4 rifle, the M320 which can be attached or stand alone, and the M32 6-cylinder grenade launcher.
Does the round matter? HE grenades, bad, but what about non-lethal rounds? Or buckshot round (If I did my math right, a 40mm buckshot round would be a 1 gauge shotgun).

Current Federal law classifies grenades as destructive weapons with no sporting use.

I think I can go along with that...anti-personnel weapons only.

But what about fully automatic weapons? I don't know.

Step #1 What guns are the state/local LEOs (police/sheriff) issued?

Step #2 What personal security threat do LEOs face not also faced by those that they are supposed to protect and serve?

Step #3 What mention of "sporting use" exists in the 2A?

 

[vegas giants]

so you want to argue training. I can prove that I am better trained than 99% of the cops. I can prove you are lying about many cops

so the second amendment turns on training? shall we extend that to voting? public speech.

Cops can carry those weapons on the street and use them for self defense. other civilians cannot even transport those weapons away from their home without all the paperwork for them being present

look-I understand, based on your posts-you know very little about cops, their training etc, but you are only going to make a fool of yourself claiming that the average cop is better trained than the average citizen who owns or desires to own automatic weapons

edit-and doesn't your silly claim apply equally to any firearm? if your attitude is that cops should be the only ones allowed to possess select fire weapons due to "training", why stop with those firearms? where in the constitution does that line get drawn?

civilians are civilians, military is military. cops are no more entitled to military offensive arms than other civilians.

Yes it ahould apply to all firearms. Anyone who can PROVE they are highly trained and highly background checked should be able to have any gun they want. That must blow your mind since you think I want to ban guns

 

[Moderate Right]

So what you're saying is that you want to change the subject because you don't have a good answer to this question?

You guys wouldn't accept evidence if it was in a hammer and hit you over the head. Can't argue with people that are partisan to the bone.

 

[TurtleDude]

Yes it ahould apply to all firearms. Anyone who can PROVE they are highly trained and highly background checked should be able to have any gun they want. That must blow your mind since you think I want to ban guns

you do because you want to ban guns for anyone who doesn't meet your definition of "well trained"

if we applied that to voters, and made it "well informed" I doubt there would be more than 10% of the population able to vote

sorry, you cannot make a constitutional right dependent on a subjective requirement of "training". My son at age 12 was more qualified to own a machine gun than most cops, using your standards.

 

[vegas giants]

you do because you want to ban guns for anyone who doesn't meet your definition of "well trained"

if we applied that to voters, and made it "well informed" I doubt there would be more than 10% of the population able to vote

sorry, you cannot make a constitutional right dependent on a subjective requirement of "training". My son at age 12 was more qualified to own a machine gun than most cops, using your standards.

That's not a ban. Do you think guns should be banned from convicted VIOLENT felons and terrorists. MY GOD THEN YOU ARE A GUN BANNER!!!!

 

[Moderate Right]

what I am saying is that if you think its wrong to harass, discriminate, ban from travel or immigration, muslims as a whole because a certain segment of that faith engages in jihad, why do you want to oppress the 99% of gun owners who don't commit crimes based on the facade that your oppression is designed to target the one percent who do?

Easy answer to that question. Liberals are the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

 

[Moderate Right]

That's not a ban. Do you think guns should be banned from convicted VIOLENT felons and terrorists. MY GOD THEN YOU ARE A GUN BANNER!!!!

Convicted felons and terrorists shouldn't be running around free to need be banned from guns.

 

[TurtleDude]

That's not a ban. Do you think guns should be banned from convicted VIOLENT felons and terrorists. MY GOD THEN YOU ARE A GUN BANNER!!!!

wow, talk about Orwellian doublespeak


YOU CANNOT OWN A GUN unless you meet the VEGAS standard of "highly trained"

that's a ban

and its unconstitutional

I think the federal government doesn't have the proper power to disbar a felon from owning a gun. I fully support the power of the several states to ban those who have engaged in violent felonies from owning firearms. but that is far different than preventing people from exercising a right until they meet your stupid standard of training. and how is that going to prevent criminals from getting guns-you know stuff its already illegal for them to have

sounds like you just want to hassle honest gun owners more

 

[vegas giants]

Convicted felons and terrorists shouldn't be running around free to need be banned from guns.

But they are.

 

[TurtleDude]

Easy answer to that question. Liberals are the biggest hypocrites on the planet.

that and family values social conservatives who run around felching gerbils or getting hand jobs from strangers in a public toilet

 

[TurtleDude]

But they are.

that has nothing to do with gun control but rather felon control

so you believe in life sentences for all violent crime?

 

[vegas giants]

wow, talk about Orwellian doublespeak


YOU CANNOT OWN A GUN unless you meet the VEGAS standard of "highly trained"

that's a ban

and its unconstitutional

I think the federal government doesn't have the proper power to disbar a felon from owning a gun. I fully support the power of the several states to ban those who have engaged in violent felonies from owning firearms. but that is far different than preventing people from exercising a right until they meet your stupid standard of training. and how is that going to prevent criminals from getting guns-you know stuff its already illegal for them to have

sounds like you just want to hassle honest gun owners more

You are a gun banner. You clearly said you support a gun ban. Those are your words. I will now refer to you as a gun banner everytime you call me that term. Or perhaps bannerhoid.

Or we could put this aside and have civil debate. Your choice

 

[vegas giants]

that has nothing to do with gun control but rather felon control

so you believe in life sentences for all violent crime?

No. I agree that felons should not have guns. But yoiu must admit that you want to ban guns then too

 

[PIPEWRENCH]

That's not a ban. Do you think guns should be banned from convicted VIOLENT felons and terrorists. MY GOD THEN YOU ARE A GUN BANNER!!!!

If they are still violent they should not be let loose into society. Only stupid people would do that.


However once they have served their punishment and have been found to no longer be a threat to society they should have all their rights reinstated including the right to bear arms.

 

[vegas giants]

If they are still violent they should not be let loose into society. Only stupid people would do that.


However once they have served their punishment and have been found to no longer be a threat to society they should have all their rights reinstated including the right to bear arms.

Well turtledude is a gun banner in those cases