The idea of it's the person, not the gun is non sequitur. A nut job will commit a nut job atrocity but it's trying to limit/restrict/regulate etc.. the tools for their attack. As gun control is tight in the UK, the nut jobs tend to look for knives. Knives are deadly but a gun is a different ball game. At one time it was quite straightforward to hire a van. So I went to get one today. Had to take a utility bill, driving licence, NI number and passport. The driving licence was checked out on the government website and all documents photocopied. They claim it's for insurance purposes, I think it's more to do with nut jobs running over crowds.
What makes a mass shooter? Motive, means, opportunity, the ability to mostly hit what one is shooting at and sufficient bullets. It's not rocket science.
Meh! As far as I am concerned you can call them bad boys fairy floss and it would not alter the fact they have no role in civilian life
Goody then you can call the FBI and tell them to stop looking at the problem because you have found the answers
I imagine with some research there can be some documentation found to substantiate my statement. I believe it because of the training I received as a rookie cop in the suburbs of Detroit. A lot of people don't allow consideration for ricochet, debris and shrapnel.
People are vulnerable to cults when they are not spiritually grounded. Jim Jones was presenting himself as a god....much like N. Korea leaders and the people who joined his cult of utopia were in need of something to worship. As America loses our focus on God, yes you will see more of that, and more mass shootings as Godless people choose the enjoyment of killing. Trump supporters want to keep their country as founded and see Trump as sharing their agenda. It's as simple as that. He's not a cult leader. He has built trust in part because he hasn't lost focus of his promises and in part because the hatred of the left has been very enlightening.
Bullets do not all end up in the desired target and I agree with the view above on that. Funny my son law retired as a police officer and he is all in favor of the 2nd amendment and citizens owning guns. I believe it was him that told me that the cops support the 2nd amendment but the chiefs are not likely to be as in favor of it.
I had the M-1 Garand both in the Army and in my private life I fired the Carbine a bit though. First locating a good Garand is not as easy as one thinks. A lot of them have been rebuilt by other nations and the word is that they are inferior to the American made used in Korea and back. I should have bought the more expensive M-14 over the Garand. But for civilian use, it is just semiautomatic and not able to fire full automatic. I guess around one can obtain the special switch used on the Army full automatic versions but I would not be interested in full automatic. Burns too much ammo for what? Frankly the cost of 20 rounds for 2 seconds of so called fun is not my gig. Watch this dude get his kicks though. Cost of 30.06 ammo https://www.sportsmansguide.com/pro...-ammo/30-06-springfield-ammo?d=121&c=96&s=916
he used a bump stock, which isn't automatic fire, it's just a lil quicker/easier than semi... and bump stocks are illegal... didn't help did it
the 5.56 (m16) was chosen for it's lightweight, compact round, which allowed troops to carry more... also higher cyclic rate... the first 16's had minimal rifling so the rounds tumbled, causing horrendous wounds, later deemed to be inhumane, in comes the updated bores with more twist for through n throughs.
I am less familiar with the 5.56 round other than knowing it is approximate the size of the 22 cal round only with a cartridge with more powder adding greatly to the velocity of the round. I did not know of the minimal rifling. Humane and war is an oxymoron. We refuse to gas them to death but we will be happy to drop 1000 pound bombs on them so they vanish. Funny innit?
yep, and don't be picking up a rock/brick to smash the enemies skull during hand to hand combat, that'd be a war-crime but , by all means, hit 'em with a 120mm round from a tank, that's ok
I read the books by both Gen. Fred Franks (a commander in the Gulf War) and Gen. Tommy Franks (also in the Gulf war then commander over the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan) about the destruction of the 120mm round from the M-2 Abram's. We had the M-60 in Germany when I was in the Army and that was bad enough. But the Abrams is super destructive. When it hit the enemy tank, the turrets would blast off and fall elsewhere. Also when i was in the army, we had the Davy Crockett and that vaporized the enemy. But we dare not gas the enemy where their bodies simply fell dead.
I don't have to prove a thing. Teaching you any thing is not my responsibility. If you want to learn, do your own research.
That's not the way debate works. You made an unequivocal claim: "Keep in mind that every single round that 'only' hit pavementor gravel caused a lot of injury and possible death just by the debris being kicked up by the bullet's impact". It's incumbent upon you to support the claim with proof, or withdraw it.
I wasn't debating. I was telling you something you didn't know. Whether you choose to believe it, doubt it or research it is not my concern.
Demonstration of the M-14 vs the M-16 Included are numbers of rounds fired with the heavy rifle vs many more rounds fired by the light rifle. A lot of rounds are wasted in combat.
