In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1600
Online now 1605 Record: 10351 (3/11/2012)
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
i'm saying there aren't any circumstances while i have been hunting that required a semi-auto. not once. a break-action double barrel is enough for anyone to take down just about anything at many different ranges. a deer rifle, a bolt action is plenty fast enough. if you're worried that the deer would see you after a miss where it didn't run, then don't miss. rabbit hunting? a .410/.22 over/under is awesome. you're also losing muzzle velocity and accuracy with a semi-auto, you are using some of the powder to move the slide, eject the spent case and reload. the inertia of that movement also throws the barrel off-line.
only reason hunters like semi-auto is that they don't even need to chamber a round, just yank that trigger. why i never have deer hunted, too many amateurs with semi autos blasting away like the fourth of july. a hunting gun does not need to be semi auto, many are but they are not needed.
This post was edited by Turf 16 months ago
The AR-15 is only used for hunting by about 1 out of 4 or 1 in 5 of its owners.
"In a survey conducted by the shooting sports foundation, gun dealers reported that in 2011, 49.1 percent of the AR-15-style rifles they sold were bought for target shooting, up from 46.3 percent in 2009. Hunting accounted for 22.8 percent of sales, and personal protection 28.1 percent. "
Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster semiautomatic rifle, a model of the popular AR-15 style guns that can fire multiple rounds rapidly and at high velocity and have appeared in other recent shooting rampages.
What kind of a "hunter" needs a semi-auto to get the job done? Rifle with a scope not enough for ya?
I must be crazy to be in a loony bin like this.
Although Lanza had other weapons on him, one of which he used to off himself as the police showed up, it appears that all of his victims were shot multiple times with the AR-15 he used. One person did survive, so his kill rate was 26 out of 27 using the AR-15. He used several 30 round magazines. Guess he didn't get the memo that AR-15s aren't that deadly.
I am thankful that the NRA hasn;t had it's way or this psycho might have had a fully automatic rifle with 100 round magazines. Heck, he could have killed the 2nd and 3rd grade classes before police arrived too if only the darned tryanical government had stopped fully automatic assault rifles from being made legal.
Furthermore, his mother trained him how to use them knowing he has mental issues. I bet the NRA is so proud of having her as a member.
This post was edited by Johnny2x2x 16 months ago
Could you clarify the point you're trying to make here? Gun free zones are typically places where large numbers of people congregate - schools, churches, stadiums, etc. Aren't large numbers of people sort of a prerequisite for mass shootings? It hardly seems like an indictment of gun free zones that mass shootings tend to take place where masses of people gather.
And BTW, do you actually believe mentally ill mass killers take into account gun free zone laws when planning their attack? Or do you think it's slightly more logical that their choice of location is related to the emotional problems they are facing? I.e. postal workers "going postal" shoot up post offices, right? Students snapping and seeking revenge tend to shoot up schools.
Please tell me the pro-gun lobby isn't making the argument that the prospect of armed teachers will deter mentally ill teenagers who intend to kill themselves anyway from carrying out their plots. Oh wait, that's exactly what they're arguing. Yikes.
The ban on semiautomatic rifles didn't work then and won't work now.
I will say this about bans and restrictions. They may not prevent the "determined" or crazy killer. He is gonna go until stopped forcefully - but the so-called "ambivalent" killer - the upset Dad or the teen seeking attention - difficulty of procurement maybe just enough to stop it.
I absolutely believe they do. "Mentally ill" doesn't seem to deter their other planning. They know in gun free zones no one will be shooting back at them. Factual or not it's being reported in this case that he killed himself as he heard police arriving.....thus return fire wasn't far away. To me that's an indication he feared it.
I respect your opinion, but totally disagree. The location of mass killings is the critical component for the assailant. Take a look at the history of mass killings in the last 30 years. The gun-free zone status is a coincidence while the assailant's relationship with the site is the constant - work places are targeted by disgruntled employees, schools by disgruntled students, etc.
This post was edited by Fletch 16 months ago
By the way, I realize it's only one instance, but the Fort Hood massacre completely contradicts your theory. Short of walking into a police station I'm not sure the assailant could have selected a more heavily armed location. But again, the venue was infinitely more important to him than the threat of encountering armed adversaries.
Do you have a link to back up this claim? This chart of mass murders in the last 30 years seems to include many that weren't in gun free zones - especially many, many workplace shootings.
A small sampling of venues I don't believe are on gun free lists:
Office buildings (numerous incidents)
Mail processing plant
Didn't the Fort Hood shootings take place at the Fort Hood "Soldier Readiness Processing Center", a medical facility where the shooter worked as a psychiatrist?
Don't think a medical clinic within the US borders is going to contain very many armed servicemen.
You need to investigate further. They weren't armed, the area he was in was.....gun free. At least one person was killed or wounded while trying to subdue him with a chair.
Not for duck hunting, no.
"People don't care how much you know until they know how much you care." - Mark Dantonio.
All but one mass killing since 1950 has been in a "gun free" zone.
Question authority. Power to the people
You have been misinformed but it is understandable. People hear army base, and they think people are walking around with guns. But that was not the case. Firearms are kept in the armory. The only folks armed were MPs who were the first to encounter the terrorist.
one of the more disgusting things I've ever read here
We've got depth. We've got numbers.
People CAN legally own full automatic weapons....ownership is regulated under the National Firearms Act. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act#Categories_of_firearms_regulated
You have to jump through a lot of hoops; background checks, sign offs from the ATF and local law enforecement and pay fees and taxes but it can be done.
I totally respect your opinion and I am posting this in the hope you will correct your statement above about "We don't allow people to have fully automatic machine guns...".
My heart aches for those children...
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by 11B2P 16 months ago
Yes, how people keep insisting these gun free zones are some kind of safe place when they are proven killing zones is disgusting.
Some of them even insist anyone trying to stop a shooter would only escalate the violence and cause more deaths!
Well I guess they can rest well knowing that Lanza was able to SAFELY finish his killing without any escalation of violence.
Hey, but within a half hour of the shooting they started exploiting the dead children for their own political gains. Pathetic.
I asked you for a citation of this stat and I still haven't seen it. I provided evidence to the contrary above. Please stop lying.
Any citation of this stat you keep repeating yet? Or are you conceding it is inaccurate?
For those of you wanting a ban on assault rifles thinking it will help, Connecticut not only has the most stringent gun laws on the books, they also have their own ban on assault weapons - just like the one Fienstien is trying to push through. These gun bans do not work. Columbine happened during Clintons assault weapon ban. No assault weapon was used, but proves my point that a killer does not need an "assault rifle" to kill a bunch of people. If you put a ban on assault weapons, it a) won't stop a killer from using other weapons and 2) doesn't mean a killer can't obtain one through illegal means. Gun laws do not work. These killers are mentally deranged. We need to look at it from a mental health point of view, not a gun control point of view.
Disagree. If we make it extremely expensive and difficult to to get guns and ammo, by implication there will be less guns. The less guns there are the less likely it is for crazy people to get them.
We may not stop the determined killer, but the delay and difficulty may stop the ambivalent ones or possibly reveal them before they can act.
Guns are sold so prolifically because they are profitable. End the profit and you go a long way towards limiting guns.
Are you sure about that?
This post was edited by Spartytruth 16 months ago
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports