3+ Dead, bowling alley shooting in California.

[Deus Mortis]

That has got to be the dumbest thing I have heard all week....

Responsibility? What the fuck? Since when did "right to bear arms" become "responsibility to bear arms". It was never, EVER, a "responsibility" and was only considered a "right" as far as the founding fathers were concerned in regards to "the people" as a collective entity, not as an individual....

Also, great, the Founding Fathers discussed it Ad nauseum. Too bad the founding fathers lived almost 2 hundred fucking years ago, where the most advanced weaponry of the time were field cannons and muzzle loading muskets with a single shot firing rate of around 3 shots a minute in the hands of professionally trained soldiers..... I mean, christ, they intentionally designed the constitution so that it could be amended EXPRESSLY to prevent the dumbfuckery you are living with now, where 200 years worth of technological development later we have individual single man operated guns with more accurate lethal firepower than an entire musket brigade, but are still operating under a law that thinks that the people are going to rise up and fight the government with fucking smooth bore muzzle loading muskets.

They knew where technology was headed with guns, Thomas Jefferson had a "Girandoni air rifle" that fired far faster than your bullshit 3 shots a minute line.

these assault weapons were .46 caliber, military, magazine fed, rifles with high capacity magazines capable of firing 22 shots in 60 seconds.

https://www.ammoland.com/2014/06/loo...assault-rifle/

[Surfd]

They knew where technology was headed with guns, Thomas Jefferson had a "Girandoni air rifle" that fired far faster than your bullshit 3 shots a minute line.

https://www.ammoland.com/2014/06/loo...assault-rifle/

So because an incredibly wealthy American guy had a relatively rare and super fucking expensive state of the art european military gun, that means the rest of the general population of the american peasantry was expected to have them? Are you fucking nuts?

They knew where technology was headed with guns my ass.... That's about as dumb as trying to argue that the people who built the first computers back in the 40s and 50s could have accurately predicted how fast computer tech would evolve. If you told them that 50 years from then people would carry hundreds of thousands of times that kind of computing power around in their back pocket, they would have looked at you like you were nuts. If you tried to explain WW2 level military hardware to Jefferson he would probably shit a brick.

I mean, you do realize that Muzzle loading Flintlock Muskets (not even rifled guns, but smoothbore muskets) were still pretty much the standard issue firearm for military use even going into the start of the 1800s in colonial america....

Also, good luck firing 22 shots with that thing in 60 seconds if you actually intend to hit anything smaller than a house with it. Each shot still had to be "loaded", which required moving the rifle into a loading position and activating the loading mechanism, which would mean you would have to re-aim the thing between every shot. Unless you were just going to flail around spitting bullets in a general direction, you are not emptying the entire magazine in under a minute.

And finally, no. Just because Jefferson had access to a few relatively unique pieces of military hardware does not mean that the founding fathers ever conceived the Second Amendment with an eye towards state of the art year 2000 military hardware in mind.

I also love the wonderful way that Article tries to twist shit to fit it's agenda:

"The Founding Fathers not only knew about assault weapons, they did not exclude them from the Second Amendment."

Fun fact: the founding fathers never once mentioned guns, PERIOD, in the constitution. The second amendment literally only mentions Arms. Rather odd that the term "arms" was never actually defined. Would have saved so much headache.

[deenman]

Sorry, I didn't quite get your meaning, thought you meant 12 mass shootings a day, but since your entire argument is inherently disingenuous I doubt you can blame me. you're including suicides in your tally.

So should we include masturbation in rape tallies?

dont know if it includes suicides,you could look in to it if you rly care,but suicides also matter in this,as statisticaly failed suicide atempts dont lead to people trying again,usualy when people fail they dont atempt again,but with guns....that doesnt rly fail now does it?

[kasuke06]

dont know if it includes suicides,you could look in to it if you rly care,but suicides also matter in this,as statisticaly failed suicide atempts dont lead to people trying again,usualy when people fail they dont atempt again,but with guns....that doesnt rly fail now does it?

I had a whole diatribe prepared, but at this point you're "rly" not worth my time or effort. You are incorrect, your arguments are based on improper data, and I am done with you.

[deenman]

I had a whole diatribe prepared, but at this point you're "rly" not worth my time or effort. You are incorrect, your arguments are based on improper data, and I am done with you.

why am i incorrect?the data is what it is,its factual,its not subjective,you are the one using emotional arguments here

[Spiffums]

What a fresh way to put a spin on cherrypicking.

"If we judge the US by removing the parts that make up the US, they look real good"

Just remove the parts where the crime happens and you remove the crime.

[PosPosPos]

Just remove the parts where the crime happens and you remove the crime.

Yeah, remove the world from the equation and there's no world crime!

[MoFalcon]

Are you against people having access to a quick way out? Sounds cruel.
Also, "assault weapons" is a fearmongering term devoid of any meaning since the civilians versions and demilitarized guns are semi-auto. And semi-autos in 5.56 and 7,62x39 are excellent for home defense, sporting, plinking and I guess (I don't hunt) hunting too, hell, one of my 5.56s is catalogued specifically as a hunting weapon, though it's more of a sniper rifle in reality (but it has The Look and an evil-looking curved magazine, so in the US it'd probably be an "assault weapon"). In places such as Russia, I'm positive people hunt with 7,62x39 too.

you sure dont know anything about hunting. The caliber of the weapon has little to do with what makes it a hunting weapon. "assault" weapons dont make good hunting weapons. not going to into why...but they dont.

im not against access to guns....but people dont "need" access to every kind of gun. better control and better restriction to limit access is all im in favor of.

- - - Updated - - -

[Coolthulhu]

you sure dont know anything about hunting. The caliber of the weapon has little to do with what makes it a hunting weapon. "assault" weapons dont make good hunting weapons. not going to into why...but they dont.

im not against access to guns....but people dont "need" access to every kind of gun. better control and better restriction to limit access is all im in favor of.

- - - Updated - - -

I stated I don't hunt, so yeah, I don't know much about hunting. Still, I have a 5.56 that'd surely be classified as an assault weapon in the US because it looks evil and can take the dreaded high capacity mags which is here classified as a hunting weapon. I don't know why, seeing as how my other 5.56 "assault rifles" are classified as sporting weapons, but that's a fact, not an opinion of mine. Maybe it has something to do with the integral scope, I don't know, really. Perhaps it would've been more interesting if you did go into why, I for one am curious.

[MoFalcon]

I stated I don't hunt, so yeah, I don't know much about hunting. Still, I have a 5.56 that'd surely be classified as an assault weapon in the US because it looks evil and can take the dreaded high capacity mags which is here classified as a hunting weapon. I don't know why, seeing as how my other 5.56 "assault rifles" are classified as sporting weapons, but that's a fact, not an opinion of mine. Maybe it has something to do with the integral scope, I don't know, really. Perhaps it would've been more interesting if you did go into why, I for one am curious.

most assault weapons when shot, the 223 bullet will tumble in the air....when hunting with it, it can damage meat, not hit the target exactly where intended. Hunting rifles tend to be more accurate, have a tighter rifling on the barrel and keep the bullet on line.

Maybe you have seen this while shooting a target, the hole in the target will be elongated, like the bullet goes through sideways. Not true of all assault weapons, but a lot of them. Military weapons usually have "looser" tolerances mechanically, so if they get "dirty" they will still function. Hunting rifles need constant cleaning to keep them working properly.

[Coolthulhu]

most assault weapons when shot, the 223 bullet will tumble in the air....when hunting with it, it can damage meat, not hit the target exactly where intended. Hunting rifles tend to be more accurate, have a tighter rifling on the barrel and keep the bullet on line.

Maybe you have seen this while shooting a target, the hole in the target will be elongated, like the bullet goes through sideways. Not true of all assault weapons, but a lot of them. Military weapons usually have "looser" tolerances mechanically, so if they get "dirty" they will still function. Hunting rifles need constant cleaning to keep them working properly.

Most? Seems like a huge exaggeration. I've fired dozens of rifles and only once witnessed keyholing, using an AK-47 which had a very worn-out barrel upon inspection. If most assault weapons had the tumbling-in-flight issue they would've been dropped for just about any application due to being wildly inaccurate. Maybe after you've fired thousands of rounds without cleaning them once... maybe. I feel like adding, I don't clean my rifles after each session (400-600 rounds on average), and still haven't experienced keyholing with them.

[zenkai]

Sudden thoughts of John Goodman.

I award 10 points for that comment.

[Reaper0329]

most assault weapons when shot, the 223 bullet will tumble in the air....when hunting with it, it can damage meat, not hit the target exactly where intended. Hunting rifles tend to be more accurate, have a tighter rifling on the barrel and keep the bullet on line.

Maybe you have seen this while shooting a target, the hole in the target will be elongated, like the bullet goes through sideways. Not true of all assault weapons, but a lot of them. Military weapons usually have "looser" tolerances mechanically, so if they get "dirty" they will still function. Hunting rifles need constant cleaning to keep them working properly.

What you're thinking of is, I think, the propensity of the 5.56 NATO and .223 to yaw and tumble when it hits flesh. What you're describing is keyholing, which as Coolthulhu described would render the rifle absolutely worthless in terms of accuracy. Bullets rely on their spin (imparted by the rifling) to stabilize their flight; a bullet without any imparted spin is prone to keyholing, and such keyholing results when the rifling cannot properly "engage" the bullet, so to speak.

It's also worth noting that this isn't characteristic of an "assault weapon." At all. Any centerfire round (9mm, 45ACP, 7.62x39, whatever) is prone to keyholing in the conditions I described above; it's symptomatic of a worn out barrel or an unforgivably dirty bore (the interior of the barrel). The yawing is characteristic of 5.56 at adequate velocities. Assuming standard 5.56, it doesn't matter if the rifle is an AR15 or a bolt action. What does matter is the barrel length of either of those and the ability of the system to let that bullet reach the necessary velocity (the bolt action may have a better chance at letting that happen, as it doesn't rely on gas being bled out to cycle the action, but that's beside the point).

Not calling you out or anything, and not to make a first post just to jump down your throat (hi everyone, btw). I just think you got keyholing and yawing mixed up, generally, and the distinction is important enough to correct or clarify.

[SirKickBan]

I mean literally in that Article they have a graph that shows USA on the "Homicides via guns" to not be that far out of the group on the Horizontal axis even with the much higher rate of gun ownership against those Countries.

Which graph is that?

Is it this one?

Or this one?

..Or this one, where the homicide rate is almost four times the global median, placing it in the bottom quartile for the entire world, leaving it in such company as Iraq, Argentina, and Thailand?

That number you keep bringing up, as well, that 0.0005% one, is just bad, misleading statistical analysis. -Yes, you can make the number look smaller by comparing it to the entire living population of the United States. But if you compare it to the number of people who die, each year, in total, you get 0.5%. Or, to put it another way, one in two hundred deaths, in your country, is a murder committed with a firearm. Of course, a full 1.2 million of those deaths are due to heart disease and cancer, and there are a number of other diseases that account for much of the rest, but it's estimated that around 0.9 million preventable deaths occur in the United States every year, meaning that murder by firearm is responsible for 1.5 in every 100 preventable deaths, in the United States.

If that seems small to you, then keep in mind that preventable accidents cause a little over two and a half times as many preventable deaths, as firearms do. And that's if you, and this is important here, completely disregard the suicides by firearm.

..Does that seem right, to you, that intentional murders, with guns, kill nearly half as many people, each year, as preventable, unintentional, accidents?

[LaserChild9]

I could drown people in the bathroom with swirlies too....Doesn't mean this isn't about guns....Guns just make it easier. Faster. More effective. more accessible. more deadly. more violent.

yeah. Guns aren't part of the problem at all....

How many people could you kill by swirlies in the time it takes to pull a trigger a few times? I mean, look at what you wrote " Guns just make it easier". So you are OK with giving people easier, faster, more effective and more accessible means to kill each other and then just trusting them not to?

[MoFalcon]

How many people could you kill by swirlies in the time it takes to pull a trigger a few times? I mean, look at what you wrote " Guns just make it easier". So you are OK with giving people easier, faster, more effective and more accessible means to kill each other and then just trusting them not to?

you are not reading all my my posts.....that was sarcasm...I feelings and posts are exactly the opposite.

[triplesdsu]

First US mass shooting of 2019? Oh boy, here we go

3 is a mass shooting? Guess they really want a low standard to inflate the numbers. Seen plenty of shootings with more than 3 people hurt, nothing mass about it but whatever floats your boat. Considering you can shoot someone in CA and get out in like 3 years, i really dont care to hear calls for retarded gun control in a state thats already fairly restrictive. Start punishing those who commit these crimes you pretend to be so outraged about before you try to commit those who arent.

[Lazuli]

I'm not even safe in the bowling alley anymore. That's just like, wrong, man...

[TroubleInc]

America loves their guns more than fellow human beings. Is anyone really surprised by this latest shooting at a bowling alley?

[lokithor]

https://abc7.com/man-arrested-in-dea...oting/5030921/



this guy shouldn't have even been let out in the first place.