Handgun type used on Sikhs is mass shooting weapon of choice

[onehandle]

(Reuters) - The semiautomatic handgun used in the deadly attack on a Wisconsin Sikh temple is the same type used in other recent U.S. mass shootings, including one at a theater in Colorado, and the attack on a congresswoman in Arizona, gun experts said.

Wisconsin shooter Wade Michael Page used a Springfield 9mm semiautomatic handgun to carry out the attack at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, officials said. As in several other recent mass shootings, the gun had been purchased legally, at a Milwaukee-area gun store called the Shooter Shop.

Page lived in North Carolina before moving to the Milwaukee area and was issued five separate gun purchase permits in North Carolina after passing a background check in May 2008, according to the Cumberland County, North Carolina, sheriff's office.

Semiautomatic handguns are the weapon of choice for mass murderers because they are light and easy to conceal, and adaptable to using high-capacity magazines, experts say. This allows the shooter to fire the maximum number of bullets in a short period of time, said Josh Sugarmann, executive director of the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit group that advocates to reduce gun violence.

http://news.yahoo.com/handgun-type-used-sikhs-mass-shooting-weapon-choice-051221545.html

Rightists have found their Jesus Gun.

[Reasonable_Argument]

1. So

If he had a revolver and several speed loaders you'd have no complaints about the weapon he used? Just curious.

[99Forever]

13. Well lookie there...

... took an incredibly long, whole three minutes for an NRA talking point response from the Gun Cult.

You're slowing down.

[Reasonable_Argument]

50. Simply making an obvious point

Sorry if you don't like it when I point it out.

[barbtries]

101. never fails.

i read and rec'd the post and told myself the first such response i'd trash the thread. i like your response however.

[rDigital]

158. Cool straw man, bro.

[99Forever]

159. Get back to me...

... when you learn what a strawman is, mmmmmmmmmk?

Do you like pizza?

[rDigital]

164. You dodge

an argument by calling it a "talking point" from the NRA instead of addressing it head on. You're misrepresenting your opponents position and attempting to refute it with ridicule.

Not only is it a straw man, but it is one of the poorest examples I've seen on DU.

[bayareaboy]

15. really?

When is the last time you have seen a Law Officer use a use a wheelgun and a speedloader? My memory does not go back that far. Besides that, the whole operation of operation of dislodging brass, placing the speedloader to the revolver wheel and closing the gun are not even close to what you can do with, isn't even close to an automatic. And then we have 14 or more rounds instead of 6 rounds.

give us a break!

[Reasonable_Argument]

49. Well

You'd be surprised how quickly you can reload, just a few seconds with pratice.

[TheMadMonk]

103. And less than a second for a magazine. Or just barely time...

...to rise from a prone position to standing, certainly not enough to cover any ground toward or away from the shooter. And ALSO insufficient time to have a fair chance of clearing a carried weapon and bringing it to bear on the shooter.

Record re-loading time for a speedloader, appears to be 1.62 seconds,so one can safely assume that even a well practiced average shooter is highly unlikely to come in much under 3 seconds.

Even against the world record holder, I've got to plenty of time to stand and attempt a crash tackle from as much as 20 odd feet away. Against the average joe, anyone within 50-60 feet, has a bloody good chance of AT THE VERY LEAST knocking that speed loader (and probably gun) from his hands.


As far as personal defence weaponry is concerned, (particularly against another shooter) if you're not safe after 2 shots, 12 more in the clip WILL NOT MAKE A WHIT OF DIFFERENCE to your rapidly cooling corpse.

Concealed carry, for the average citizen, if permitted at all, should be limited to something akin to a Derringer.

[NutmegYankee]

132. Good luck on that 20 foot charge.

[Bake]

138. Because a Derringer has SO MUCH stopping power.

Bake

[ileus]

55. or a metal framed 7 shot 1911.

[Union Scribe]

2. ok, now what?

After Aurora everyone was saying ban assault rifles, but no we don't want to take your handguns. basically all handguns operate as described, they are semi-autos. What's it going to be now? By the way, I don't own any guns so you can skip right past your usual litany of insults and tell me what you think can be done.

[Warren Stupidity]

6. high capacity magazines.

duh.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

8. What should the max number of rounds in the least time be allowable? (ie: bullets per second)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

19. Maybe if the magazines were regulated...

Just spit-balling here. What if to get a high capapcity magazine, you had to go through a degree of screening that was less than a fully-automatic weapon, but more than just purchasing the weapon itself.

I suspect that many criminals and mental patients would not want to invite that level of scrutiny and might just take a pass.

Yes, I fully realize that law-abiding firearm owners (and high capacity magzines are a convenience for target shooters) would experience a degree of inconvenience because of this but, really, how often do you need to purchase one of these? It's not like you're going out a buying one once a week or even once a month.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

24. But what's the basis or cut-off point for such legislation? Where is the "line in the sand"?

IMO, you need a solid starting point and basis/justification for a gun debate.
a) Determine the necessity for action - (the need to limit firepower has been illustrated)
b) Determine what item needs limitation to satisfy the necessity for action - (magazines limits will limit firepower)
c) Determine Limitations - ( ... ??? ...)

High capacity magazines are bad. Got it. Why? Because they allow a shooter to achieve maximal amount shots fired in a minimal amount of time. OK, I get that too. So if one suggests a ban or (as you recommended) stricter scrutiny in sale on these hi-cap magazines...

My question is, "If limiting the maximum amount shots fired in a minimal amount of time is the goal... what should the magazine limit be (ie: shots per second) to determine which kinds of magazines receive extra legal hurdles? 3 rounds, 10 rounds, 15 rounds, 20 rounds, 30 rounds ... ?"

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

37. +20 Rounds

Just as a arbitrary place to start. I think (not certain) that 20 rounds is that size of the ammo box for an AR-15 as shipped from the factory. And if you're a target shooter, after twenty rounds you can pause to reload. Smoke 'em if you got 'em.

[4th law of robotics]

100. Leaving only Virginia Tech style shootings

[dionysus]

73. for pistols it would be pretty easy; no clips that extend below the grip.

[obamanut2012]

78. Mine doesn't and is 12+1

9mm.

It came with two mags, and I load both when I'm going target shooting.

As you said, this would be an easy one.

[Sirveri]

196. Glock 17 holds 17 + 1, also 9mm.

CA has a ten round limit. Not the end of the world to have to buy a few extra mags to take to the range in my book.

[Trunk Monkey]

124. So if I own a CZ75B that takes a 12 round MAGAZINE

and a CZ 2075 RAMI that will also accept the same MAGAZINE even though the MAGAZINE extends below the grip the MAGAZINE is legal in one gun but illegal in the other?

How is that in the slightest logical?

[TheMadMonk]

108. If you can't make yourself safe with the first 2 shots, 12 more won't help.

Five would be more than reasonable for any gun carried in public or kept at home.

If you must have larger capacity clips for "sporting purposes", then let the "sporting" venues keep those clips on site in secure storage.

The mandating of some sort of "clip key" and a time consuming sequence of actions to change clips could also go a long way towards limiting the amount of damage when a shooter goes off the rails.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

113. So basically... every revolver made for the past 200 years has "too many bullets"

LOL

[TheMadMonk]

144. Only if you're the sort of yahoo who ignores advice...

...and carries one under the hammer.

[PavePusher]

150. Modern revolvers are quite safe with "one under the hammer". n/t

[MicaelS]

163. Modern double action revolvers have drop safeties..

So it's perfectly safe to carry the cylinder fully loaded. Your suggestion applies to single action revolvers which no one would carry as a serious defensive weapon.

[sweetapogee]

128. a lot of people forget

the assault weapons ban included handgun magazines that exceeded 12 rounds. I have a few 15 round magazines that are stamped right on them that they are not legal for private use. This of course went away when the AWB was reversed.

The number of rounds in a magazine is not the only determining factor on how fast a shooter can send bullets down range. I would rather have my 12 shot DA SA than my 15 shot DA only as it takes a lot of effort to pull that trigger 15 times. My 12 shot is also a lot more accurate in SA mode.

Another poster mentioned the capacity of an AR15, standard magazine capacity is 30 rounds. At .80 cents a round it costs $24.00 to empty a magazine.

As others have said, a lot of Dem's changed their voting habits when the AWB was passed.

[Travis_0004]

157. 80 cents a round? You need to find a better place to buy ammo.

[rDigital]

160. Wolf is about 25 cents a round right now. PMC bronze 30 cents : ). NT

[Warren Stupidity]

22. there is no point to this discussion unless you are agreeing

that reasonable regulation of magazine capacity is a good idea.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

26. Correct. So what is the determination of "reasonable"

Enacting a limit of 1 round would be unreasonable (too much restriction). Enacting a limit of 100 rounds would be unreasonable (this restriction solves nothing). So there is a point somewhere in between that can be considered reasonable, right? IMO, you need a solid starting point and basis/justification for a gun control debate. When talking about limiting any enumerated right, requirements should not be vague and limitations should not be arbitrary. There should be justification all around. I think we've demonstrated points a and b below. So, what next?

a) Determine the necessity for action - (the need to limit firepower has been illustrated)
b) Determine what item needs limitation to satisfy the necessity for action - (magazines limits will limit firepower)
c) Determine Limitations - ( ... ??? ...)

High capacity magazines can be bad. Got it. Why? Because they allow a shooter to achieve maximal amount shots fired in a minimal amount of time. OK, I get that too. So if one suggests a ban or more regulation in sale on these hi-cap magazines...

My question is, "If limiting the maximum amount shots fired in a minimal amount of time is the goal... what should the magazine limit be (ie: shots per second) to determine which kinds of magazines receive extra legal hurdles? 3 rounds, 10 rounds, 15 rounds, 20 rounds, 30 rounds ... ?"

[slackmaster]

29. When Warren Stupidity says reasonable, he really means sensible

As in common sense, i.e. if you disagree with him you are not a reasonable or sensible person.

[Warren Stupidity]

59. I mean there can be no discussion of the details if the idea itself is not accepted as

a good idea. None of you have, for example, accepted that a limit on magazine capacity is a good idea. Consequently I am not going to discuss the details of that limit.

Yes I think a limit on magazine capacity would be a common sense, reasonable, sensible regulation on gun ownership and manufacture. You all won't even make that step, you just keep quibbling over definitions and mouthing the latest talking points.

[hack89]

62. I would draw the line at 20 rounds

a standard AR-15 mag.

Would you find that acceptable?

[Warren Stupidity]

65. I think it is high, but it would be a start.

It would have to come with a manufacture and import ban, a ban on public or private sales of over the limit magazines, and major penalties for violations. I'd also want some requirement to register existing over-capacity magazines as a step to limit black market activities. Without teeth regulation is useless.

[hack89]

74. You want to registers hundreds of millions of magazines? Have you considered the cost?

don't you think you could save many more lives with that kind of money by investing in healthcare or other social services?

And why do you think you can limit black market activities? If organized crime can "import" drugs by the pallet load why do you think you can stop trafficking of guns and magazines?

All you would do is waste millions of dollars that would do more good being spent else where.

[Warren Stupidity]

86. You register magazine owners and they are responsible for every out of spec magazine they own.

But as usual, you all pay lip service, as per the new talking points, to regulation, while spraying the forums with fud in an effort to put off doing anything about the horror freak show of america in the 21st century.

[hack89]

90. Don't you think regulations have to be grounded in some kind of reality?

whether it be fiscal, political or basic human nature?

You are talking about a huge, expensive bureaucratic effort to get tens of millions of gun owners to voluntarily step forward to register their magazines. Putting aside organized crime and other assorted criminals for a moment, just how successful do you think you will be? How many states will simply say that they refuse to enforce such a law?

And that doesn't even address the issue of passing Constitutional muster. There is no way a national registry of gun owners will pass strict scrutiny.

[Warren Stupidity]

96. yes they have to be effective.

So there has to be mechanism to enforce a ban. That includes suppression of a black market in illegal magazines. Registration of existing out of spec magazines would not be an expensive bureaucratic effort, any more than registration of your dog is an expensive effort. You go put your clips in the record with your local authorities. If they get stolen, you have to report that. If you want to dispose of them, you have to report that too. If unreported clips get traced back to you, you are in a pack of trouble.

If you have an alternative proposal that will make a ban effective....

[hack89]

102. Registration would never pass Constitutional muster

you really need to understand what strict scrutiny means.

And you underestimate the cost - a national database is fucking expensive to set up and maintain. The Canadians spent a billion dollars on theirs - ours would be 10 times bigger. We are not talking about an Excel spreadsheet at the town clerk's office with dog registrations.

[Warren Stupidity]

105. we spend 10 billion on fuck all every year.

But as usual, you have no suggestions for anything that will actually work. It just can't be done. Oh well ... you own the gun nut freak show out there. Have fun.

[hack89]

106. This will work

1. Decriminalize drugs and treat it as a public health problem. It will remove the financial incentive that drives so much crime.

2. Empty the prisons of non-violent drug offenders. It will save billions that can be spent on education, health care and social services.

3. Focus the justice system on like a laser on violent crime. Use a gun in committing a crime and go to prison for a very long time.

4. Single payer health care with mental health coverage.

My plan would actually address roots causes.

[Marinedem]

121. Wow.

That is probably the most sense anyone has ever made on this topic.

[derby378]

141. + one brazillion (n/t)

[rDigital]

161. Bravo

[Macoy51]

197. I am OK With That

"3. Focus the justice system on like a laser on violent crime. Use a gun in committing a crime and go to prison for a very long time."

This addresses the true problem with guns. Criminals with guns. As sensational as the mass killings are, they don’t hold a candle to the sheer numbers of people killed in ‘routine” crimes. You use a gun to rob a store, you go to jail for a long, long time. Make people realize that using a gun as a prop in a crime is a very, very bad idea. This is something I would love to see.

Of course, we may need to legalize drug use to free up space in prisons for all the gun toting criminals….but I am ok with that.




Macoy

[hack89]

107. Just remember you have never been safer. Next year you will be even safer. nt

[Kaleva]

81. I'd place a ban on any handgun mag that extends past the bottom of the grip.

This would limit the number of rounds for the particular semi-auto handgun to that which it was originally designed for. The M1911 would therefore be restricted to 7 rounds and mantyother makes would be restricted to 13 or 15 rounds.

The FN Five-seven is the only handgun that is available with a standard 20 round magazine that I am aware of.

[Warren Stupidity]

87. sounds reasonable to me. The ban would also have forestall manufactures introducing new

weapon designs that increase the capacity.

[Kaleva]

89. I think there's a natural limit to how much capacity a "standard" handgun magazine can be.

One can only make the grip of the handgun so large for the gun to remain of practical use and one can only downsize the size of the round so much for it to remain effective for its purpose.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

116. Springfield XDm 9mm holds 19+1 rounds... CZ-75 TS 9mm holds 20+1

It's extremely common for a full size 9mm pistol to hold 15-18 rounds.
Heck, alot of "compact" 9mm pistols will hold 15 rounds.

Given current current technology and common standard capacities...
I would not disagree with a 20 round limit on handgun magazines and a 30 round limit on Rifle magazines.

[PavePusher]

151. Actually, the standard is generally 8 rounds for current 1911's...

reflecting better modern spring materials. And the total rounds is usually 9, carrying 8+1.

[Kaleva]

154. Ah. Things have changed since I was in the Navy.

While the mag could fit 7 rounds, we were only allowed to put 5 rounds in them. Less stress on the spring is the reason for that if I recall correctly,

[rDigital]

162. Kel-Tec PMR-30 has 30 round mags

that fit entirely into the grip.

[Kaleva]

168. Firing the .22 WMR, I think its uses are limited even with a 30 round magazine.

[petronius]

156. It really doesn't work that way, in any area of regulation (set guns

aside for the moment): when is it ever appropriate to start from the assumption that a particular 'common sense' policy is a good idea, and then start tinkering with how to implement it?

Rather, it's incumbent on the proponents of the policy to demonstrate that it is (or is likely to be) a good idea, and that requires specific descriptions and analysis of the proposal and its implementation. In other words, you can't refuse to make a proposal, and then complain that everyone rejects your proposal (well you can, but it doesn't make a lot of sense).

You're attempting to short-circuit the process, by simply declaring as a given that a particular idea is right and proper, without developing a real justification...

[Warren Stupidity]

57. so you have not agreed that a reasonable limit on capacity is a good idea.

Therefore we have no basis for discussion of what such a limit would be. Consequently I will not propose any details. There is no point.

The NRA talking point is that the NRA supports reasonable regulation, they just haven't met one since 1968.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

99. If the limit is logical and reasonable then yes, a capacity limit may be a good idea.

[Trunk Monkey]

122. even if it's not? NT

[Trunk Monkey]

66. So, let's say you ban extended magazines

or do you mean anything over 10 rounds regardless of what the standard capacity magazine if for a given pistol.

Either way you get your ban and you even get confiscation (w/ compensation at fair market value. Like to know where the money for that is going to come from) of existing magazines.

What happens when another Sung Hui Cho shows up and kills 32 people w/ ban legal 10 round magazines? Cut it to 9?

[Warren Stupidity]

69. yes it is best to do nothing because doing something might not solve the problem.

DUI laws, for example, have not eliminated drunk driving and drunk driving fatalities, merely reduced them rather drastically. Get rid of these stupid regulations.

Seat belt and air bag regulations have not eliminated car crash deaths, some people even claim that they can cause deaths, so best we undo that nonsense too.

Airplanes continue to crash, obviously safety regulations are not entirely effective. Abolish them.

People continue to get food poisoning despite the FDA regulations and inspections. Any rightwing troll can tell you how to fix that: abolish the FDA.

[Trunk Monkey]

72. I'd rather do nothing than something that has already been proven not to work NT

[rDigital]

165. Agree, completely.

[Union Scribe]

91. so what's the limit? 10?

I'm okay with limiting magazine capacity, generally. In rifles it might help, like in Aurora with drum magazines. But let's not kid ourselves that it's going to stop killers with handguns. Given that it takes about two seconds tops to change magazines, and the old AWB vs. "high capacity" mags only differed by about five rounds, it would have only a marginal affect on someone using a handgun.

[Warren Stupidity]

97. OK I'll accept a bid of 10 too.

See how easy it is to reach agreement? Did anyone claim this would end all mass murders?

[slackmaster]

28. They really want to ban ownership of all firearms, except those used by government employees

Which is why they have lost the argument.

[99Forever]

34. Hooray...

... for strawman arguments!

They are so cute.

[slackmaster]

39. You seem familiar. Why don't you tell us what your real goal is, if I'm wrong?

[99Forever]

43. Who is ...

..."us?"

[slackmaster]

44. Everyone who reads the thread.

Let's see your plan.

[99Forever]

53. Your friends over at the NRA...

... don't like plans that might slow the ever increasing body count from the weapons used by domestic terrorists supplied by the gun manufacturing corporations they front for. So what would be the point?


Next piece of chum?

[99Forever]

56. So you speak for "Everyone who reads the thread" now?

Amazing!

[Trunk Monkey]

68. I'd certainly like to hear your plan NT

[99Forever]

76. You go first.

I'm all ears.

[Trunk Monkey]

104. My plan

NCIS is good and I'd open the NFA registry again

Prosecute all straw purchases, no exceptions.

Any denial of an NCIS background check gets you a follow up visit from your local PD, no exceptions.

No plea deals on weapons/ prohibited possessor charge, no exceptions.

Full faith and confidence clause applied to CHPs coast to coast.

Any law regarding guns must have a sunset clause, no exceptions

Now it's your turn.

[99Forever]

136. Sorry..

... NRA says "NO FUCKING WAY YOU GUN GRABBER."


Try again.

[Trunk Monkey]

148. what's your plan?

FWIW your avatar was shot to death w/ a .38 caliber charter arms bull dog revolver by a lunatic in a city that all but bans private ownership of handguns.

So, umm how's that working out for you?

[99Forever]

155. Well pal..

... you are the first person I've ever had the displeasure to encounter that used John Lennon's murder to insult someone.


You are indeed in a class of your own.

Bye.

[aikoaiko]

189. You've never read anything from the NRA have you?

[99Forever]

190. You've never read anything, have you?

[leveymg]

70. Try to take away existing firearms? Invites a blood bath. No. Ban resale of semiautos and clips.

Let people keep what they already legally have -- if it's registered -- ban resale of semiautos and clips. If people want to resell or purchase new bolt-action hunting rifles, or revolvers and shotguns for home defense, that's probably covered by 2A. But, freeze everything else in place. Nobody "needs" a semiauto for anything other than hunting other people.

[Warren Stupidity]

98. The collectors could register as collectors and continue to trade with other collectors.

And if their collection ends up in the black market they have a huge amount of explaining to do before they go to jail for a long time.

[PavePusher]

152. People have hunted game of all types with semi-auto rifles for about a century.

This "ban" on technology... how do you think that will work? Serious question.

[xchrom]

3. Du rec. Nt

[dipsydoodle]

4. US declares war on US as top killer of Americans revealed to be ‘Americans’

After discovering that more Americans are shot and killed by Americans than any other nation on earth, the US government announced a new plan to declare ‘war on the US’.

As another shooting claimed six lives at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, US authorities have insisted they can no longer simply stand by and watch more Americans killed by bloodthirsty Americans.

As a US spokesperson explained, “Every year the number of Americans shot and killed by Americans is nearly four times those killed in the September 11th atrocities – but where is our war on these so-called ‘Americans’?”

“We got Bin Laden eventually, but the real threat was here on our shores all along.”

Read more: http://newsthump.com/2012/08/07/us-declares-war-on-us-as-top-killer-of-americans-revealed-to-be-americans/#ixzz22rHLDw7s

[rgbecker]

14. The NRA. Homegrown Terrorists.

Arming America to ensure the "Socialists" don't bind the hands of the Corporations. Armed marauders, unable to identify the actual people who are said to make up Corporations, lash out at movie goers and Church attenders.

[slackmaster]

30. Have I seen you on another forum before?

You seem familiar.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

5. I thougt the Arizona and Aurora shooting used Glocks, not Springfields. ??

In fact, weren't they different calibers as well?

[krispos42]

21. Colorado and Arizona used Glocks.

Colorado was a .40-caliber Glock (Model 22, I believe) and Arizona was a 9mm Model 17 or Model 19.

Wisconsin, I'm assuming was a 9mm Springfield Armory XD or XDm.

[Chan790]

67. I believe the criticism in the OP is of semi-automatic handguns in general.

That's a losing argument, whether or not there is a "reasonable gun regulation" to be had...it's not to ban all semi-automatic handguns. That would be extreme.

[Hoyt]

77. Could ban them in public. That is not as extreme as allowing people to walk around in parks, etc.

armed.

[ieoeja]

82. I never thought about that before, but I could actually support a ban on handguns.

Growing up on a farm I experienced life in which the nearest police officer might be half an hour away. I have had anti-firearm DUers accuse me of lying about that. The point at which reality is called a lie is when I stop talking to those DUers.

So I have always been more pro- than anti- where it concerns firearms. But I could see a total ban on handguns. They might be handy, but they are far from necessary. A rifle/shotgun is almost always superior.

Overall, we have more freedom with guns than with edged weapons. Many cities around the United States now permit you to legally carry a concealed firearm. How many let you carry a concealed knife over 6 inches long? Do any?

Nobody has a problem with the fact that I can legally walk into a bar in Chicago with a sword on my hip, but not with a concealed dagger. I could see similar treatment to handguns.

[1-Old-Man]

7. Yeah, and 4-wheel drive vehicles are the most common choice of people buying SUVs too

So what? Well over half of the handguns sold in the world are semi-automatic and I'd wager a bet that that 9mm versions of them are among the 5 most common calipers too. But then there are lots of volkswagens and lots of chevrolets too, and they kill thousands of people every year, but no one blame VW or Chevy for the carnage. It is stupid drivers that kill with cars and it is sociopaths who kill with guns.

[Fumesucker]

10. I disagree with the "all shooters are sociopaths" part..

Lots of shootings are accidental or just a matter of misidentifying the target, like this NY police officer who killed his own son a few days ago.

http://gothamist.com/2012/07/22/upstate_police_officer_accidentally.php

An upstate police officer shot and killed a man early this morning who he believed to be an intruder but was actually his son. The Post-Standard reports that 59-year-old Rochester resident Michael Leach called 911 from a motel in Old Forge at around 12:51 a.m. and told dispatchers that he had shot someone he believed to be breaking into his room. The victim was 37-year-old Matthew Leach. The elder Leach, who is employed by the Perry Police Department in Wyoming County, used his .45 caliber Glock service gun to kill his son, and was hospitalized later for what officers describe as a "medical issue." The investigation is ongoing.

[1-Old-Man]

11. You are correct, I over-stated that part of the case, let us say 'many' instead of "all".

[99Forever]

16. So let us know..

Which kind of vehicle did your fellow Gun Cultist use to commit this mass murder spree?

Was it a "4-wheel drive or VW or Chevy?"

Inquiring minds want to know.

[1-Old-Man]

25. Or maybe the psychopath took a cab, so should we outlaw cabs?

The problem is the man went nuts, had gone nuts a long time earlier according to reports. But that doesn't mean for one second that the tools at his disposal caused him to kill people or to become somehow more prone to do what he did, which is what the original posting stated. Its just utter nonsense.

[99Forever]

32. You didn't answer the question.

What kind of vehicle did he use to kill those people?

.. or will you sidestep again?

[1-Old-Man]

109. There was no relevant question to be answered

Just an insult followed by gibberish.

[99Forever]

133. There certainly was.

But you must lack the courage to address it. No surprise there.

[Zoeisright]

93. I wish I could really tell you what you are.

But I can't. Here.

[1-Old-Man]

111. Sure you can, go ahead and say it

[TwilightGardener]

48. Cars are not meant to kill. They are meant to transport people.

[rDigital]

166. Yet more people are

killed with cars than any other weapon/tool (32,855 in 2010) and they are designed to be safe! There must be something wrong with most guns. They are designed to kill and there are 100's of millions of them here, yet there where just 8,775 gun murders in 2010.

I'd say most of these guns are defective.

[Zoeisright]

92. Do you really think that?

I mean, really? Cars have other purposes; in fact, their main purpose is to move people around. Do I really have to explain that to you? Guns, on the other hand: have one purpose. To kill.

Conflating the two shows your lack of knowledge.

[PavePusher]

153. My guns have never killed anything.

Although I may take some of them hunting soon.

The rest... am I using them wrong?

[sofa king]

9. Surprise! "Mass-shooting weapon of choice" is... a gun.

[justanidea]

12. Semiautomatic is nothing special

Every news article acts as if semiautomatics are some new technology. Semi auto handguns have been around for over 100 years. The vast majority of handguns sold today are semi-auto. Every police department in the US uses semi auto handguns.

The only other choice is revolvers.

Why spend $800 on a revolver when you can but a semi-auto for $500?

The semi-auto is lighter, cheaper, holds more ammo (about 12-17 shots vs a revolvers 6 or 7) and is just as reliable.

So I dont get why the word semi auto always needs to be repeated. Im not surprised he used a semi auto since most of the guns made and bought today are semi auto.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

18. I had a .22 semi-auto rifle as a kid...

I'm talking 30+ years ago. If you go to a sporting goods store, you'll find that bolt-action rifles are becoming like stereo turntables.

Semi-automatic is not some scary new technology.

[slackmaster]

31. I started using semiautomatic rifles decades ago because of an eye problem

I am right-handed but have a lazy right eye (amblyopia.) The scarcity of left-handed bolt-action rifles and the caliber limitations of lever actions left me with no reasonable alternative to semiautomatics.

[bayareaboy]

20. Yes most of them are ...

So what?

most 9mm until a few years ago only had a magazine with a capability of 7 rounds. many still do from service weapons to target arms.

I use wheelguns myself, have only a few autos, as I was a pig hunter and plinker. In fact a few of my handguns are single-shots.


what is your point, a lot of folks called semi-autos, autos and most folks knew what they were talking about, right?

[justanidea]

60. When did most 9mm semi autos only hold 7 rounds?

Glocks have been around since the mid 1980s and have made 12-17 round full size pistols the norm.

The Browning Hi-power was developed in 1935 and had a capacity of 13 rounds.

Other guns with standard capacities of 12-17 rounds were developed in the late 60s/early 70s. The CZ75, Beretta 92, and Smith Wesson Model 59 for example.

I dont consider several decades a few years.

The only pistols I see being produced today with such a low capacity are small pocket pistols.

[obamanut2012]

80. I have never seen a 9mm only hold seven rounds

10 to 12+1.

Mine is 12+1, and doesn't extend below the grip.

[bayareaboy]

112. sorry folks ...

I was thinking of a real Semi Auto like my 1911.

You do realize though that the M-39 started out being 8 rounds and that was enough for most folks, course that was before spray and pray.

[obamanut2012]

115. I don't know what "spray and pray" is supposed to be

Nor how a 1911, one of one I shoot quite a bit, is a "real" semi.

[bayareaboy]

146. You know what spray and pray is ...

That's having a big magazine and figuring that if you don't place your shots well, it's OK cause you got firepower.

[hack89]

123. If 8 was enough why was the M-59 so popular with police? nt

[bayareaboy]

145. Possibly because it was the next 9mm ...

that was given to Law enforcement folks?

What do you think?

I am sure that Smith and Wesson liked that idea. Why did not Browning High Power get used by since it was out at the end of WW2. Perhaps because Colt and Smith & Wesson had it locked up.

[hack89]

147. Or because it held more rounds.

the M-59 was merely a M-39 with more rounds.

I have never heard a cop say 13 + 1 was too many - they are not stupid. They understand there is no penalty for ending a shootout with rounds still left in your gun.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

17. The 9mm is the handgun of choice for a lot of people

And the magazine is only 8-11 rounds (depending on the make/model), which is NOT a high-capacity magazine.

Full Disclosure: I don't own one myself.

[lumberjack_jeff]

58. Largely because the ammunition is cheap. n/t

[obamanut2012]

83. It is the most inxepensive defensive round

And, smaller women like myself can handle the recoil.

[krispos42]

23. It's also the non-mass-shooting weapon of choice.

Things that are good for defense are also generally good for offense.

[Romulox]

35. The Aurora shooter used an Austrian made Glock .40 caliber. The OP is in error. nt

[99Forever]

36. Did he?

Then why is some other poster saying he used a 4-wheel drive or a VW or a Chevy?

I'm very confused!

[slackmaster]

38. You certainly are confused with respect to what really matters

The brand and caliber of firearm used are not the issue. The problem is that the mass murderer committed a mass murder.

[99Forever]

40. But the Gun Cult keeps...

.. telling me that cars are the problem with mass killings, not easy access to guns.

You fellas need to get your story straight.

[slackmaster]

42. Your use of terms like "Gun Cult" and "you fellas" gives your agenda away

You won't be able to express yourself withing the community standards for long.

Enjoy your stay.

[99Forever]

45. You keep avoiding the question.

Why?

[slackmaster]

46. You haven't asked me a question. I have only one posting handle on DU.

Are you getting your sock puppets mixed up?

[99Forever]

51. Golly...

... sometimes it's hard to distinguish one person from another when you use the same tired NRA talking points.

Pardon me all to hell.


The question was: What kind of vehicle did the Wisc. Sikh killer use in his killing rampage?

[Warren Stupidity]

61. slackmaster got locked out of this thread for a truly atrocious post.

[Trunk Monkey]

71. I agree that one was over the top NT

[99Forever]

79. Color me...

... not at all surprised.

[yardwork]

41. The U.S. had a ban on certain types of semi-automatic weapons until 2004

From the link:

The United States had a ban on certain types of assault weapons until 2004, when it was allowed to expire. Since then, U.S. gun laws have become progressively more permissive, especially at the state level.

[NickB79]

75. The AWB didn't actually ban any firearms though

It listed a number of features that most assault rifles were then sold with, ie bayonet lug, pistol grip, collapsible stock, attachment point for a grenade launcher, etc, and said you could only have ONE of these features on said guns. About 5 seconds after this law was passed, all the gun makers that were affected by the law started making the exact same guns in their factories, only without these evil features. So, they got rid of the bayonet lugs, the grenade launcher attachments, the flash hiders, and put regular stocks on instead of collapsible ones, and viola! A perfectly legal rifle that still fired the same ammo, at the same rate of fire, from the same magazines as before. And because of the hype and taboo that now surrounded assault rifles, it fueled a surge in their sales that now makes them the most popular rifle purchased in the US. Assault rifles made before the ban (so-called "pre-ban" guns) were also perfectly legal to own and sell to other people, and their value instantly shot up many hundreds of dollars each.

Certain types of MAGAZINES were indeed banned from new manufacture, anything over 10 rd. However, there were HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of 11-100 rd magazines already in circulation that remained legal to own and legal to sell, so everyone who wanted one could still get a 30-rd magazine for $30-$50.

The only thing the AWB did was put a lot of money into the pockets of the gun makers and those individuals who were smart or lucky enough to own pre-ban guns and magazines before the law passed.

[Kaleva]

84. Not really

Those who had them could still own them and the ones manufactured prior to the ban going into effect remained legal to sell, purchase and own.

New AR-15s were banned but Colt got around that by making some changes to the gun which didn't affect its lethality at all and giving it a new name.

[panader0]

47. It seems to me that the real issue about gun control

is that, with so many millions of guns in circulation, that any gun or any type of ammo clip can be bought even if laws are made to restrict them. Laws against 30 rounds clips or assault rifles will prevent them from being purchased legally, but anyone can still buy them illegally and easily.

[ileus]

52. poly pistols aren't the problem.

What is a Jesus gun? Are you claiming Jesus wants followers to murderer people?

[Comrade_McKenzie]

54. That's a good one to start with when we start banning them...

When will we begin selling the vials of tears from the gun nuts?

I'd like to have one as a souvenir.

[hack89]

63. You appear to have an active fantasy life.

call me when the President starts talking banning hand guns.

[X_Digger]

64. Ahh, Josh Sugarmann reliving his old role as head of Handgun Control Inc.

"A gun-control movement worthy of the name would insist that President Clinton move beyond his proposals for controls -- such as expanding background checks at gun shows and stopping the import of high-capacity magazines -- and immediately call on Congress to pass far-reaching industry regulation like the Firearms Safety and Consumer Protection Act introduced by Senator Robert Torricelli, Democrat of New Jersey, and Representative Patrick Kennedy, Democrat of Rhode Island. Their measure would give the Treasury Department health and safety authority over the gun industry, and any rational regulator with that authority would ban handguns."

Josh Sugarmann (executive director of the Violence Policy Center, Dispense With the Half Steps and Ban Killing Machines, Houston Chronicle, Nov. 5, 1999

Never mind the tautological balderdash- it's akin to saying, "Red sports cars are more frequently involved in crashes, let's ban red sports cars!"

[Zoeisright]

94. And you've done ... what ... about this problem?

Nothing.

[X_Digger]

95. And yet crime (including crimes with guns) continues to drop..

From wiki via FBI & DOJ's BJS..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

The year 2010 was overall the safest year in almost forty years. The recent overall decrease has reflected upon all significant types of crime, with all violent and property crimes having decreased and reached an all-time low. The homicide rate in particular has decreased 51% between its record high point in 1991 and 2010.

From 2000-2008, the homicide rate stagnated.[10] While the homicide rate decreased continuously between 1991 and 2000 from 9.8 homicides per 100,000 persons to 5.5 per 100,000, it remained at 5.4-5.7 until 2009, when it dipped down to 5.0, and continued to drop in 2010 to 4.8.

Despite the recent stagnation of the homicide rate, however, property and violent crimes overall have continued to decrease, though at a considerably slower pace than in the 1990s.[10] Overall, the crime rate in the U.S. was the same in 2009 as in 1968, with the homicide rate being roughly the same as in 1964. Violent crime overall, however, is still at the same level as in 1973, despite having decreased steadily since 1991.[11]

[bongbong]

127. And yet...

... you still can't say more guns make you safer (which the NRA parrots never say directly, just imply)

The NRA acolytes haven't figured out that correlation isn't causation.

[X_Digger]

129. Had I said that, you'd be right.

There is no correlation, either direct or inverse.

[bongbong]

135. Good

Try to convince your fellow gun-relgionists of it.

[X_Digger]

140. So we agree that the 'more guns = more crime' canard is bullshit?

Glad to hear it. Do feel free to pass that along to your fellow prohibitionists.

[bongbong]

169. Canards

> So we agree that the 'more guns = more crime' canard is bullshit?

No, it's not proven one way or the other.

However, there seems to be some correlation between "lotsa guns & loose gun laws" and "lotsa murders" when you compare the USA to pretty much any other country in the world.

Thanks for playing.

[X_Digger]

173. No correlation means no correlation.

You want to hang on to the correlation when it goes your way, but you decry it when it goes the other.

When in reality, the existence of both trends tracking in the same direction but also tracking in opposite directions at different times means that there actually *is* no correlation.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

compare the USA to pretty much any other country in the world.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. ('after this, because of this')

If you look at the US murder rate in say, the late 1800's and compare to the UK (when neither country had much in the way of gun control), you'd see that the US still had a murder rate five times as high as the UK.

In order to prove a correlation (much less causation), you'd need to see a sharper decline in murder rates *after* implementing gun control than before.

It does no good to compare to a country that had a low murder rate *before* gun control. That doesn't even demonstrate correlation.

[bongbong]

177. Cake

> You want to hang on to the correlation when it goes your way, but you decry it when it goes the other.

You need to learn better reading comprehension. My point reflected a completely different point. It was comparing gun deaths in the USA vs other countries. I've dropped discussing the false claim about "more guns = more safety", at least with you, since you seem to understand that there is no way to prove it one way or the other. This is true when speaking ONLY about the USA as an isolated case.

> If you look at the US murder rate in say, the late 1800's and compare to the UK (when neither country had much in the way of gun control), you'd see that the US still had a murder rate five times as high as the UK.

Five times what? The number of gun murders in cities? The number of gun murders in the country? The US & Britain were radically different in the late 1800s. Now you're introducing a million more new variables. Much more productive to keep the variables to a minimum, by comparing both countries in the 2000's when they're relatively the same socioeconomically speaking. Naturally I know this doesn't help the case for gun-relgion, but then facts rarely do.

[X_Digger]

181. It disproves your supposed correlation, so I understand why you avoid it.

Before the UK (or the US) had gun control, the UK's *murder rate* was still five times less than ours.

So obviously, "loose gun laws" had no impact (since they didn't exist in either place).

Comparing the UK today to the US and making the erroneous conclusion that because one has stricter gun control and a lower murder rate that gun control must be responsible- it doesn't logically follow- especially when the same was true (comparing murder rates) before there was *any* gun control.

There are a million and one things that you could claim correlation *at this point in time* and then imply causation.

The UK has the NHS, and we don't have single payer- look at their murder rate compared to ours!

The UK is a series of islands and we're not- look at their murder rate compared to ours!

...
...

No, what you'd need to show correlation would be a trend over time- if the UK's murder rate dropped after implementing gun control (which it didn't), then you'd have at least correlation- from which you could try to determine causation.

[bongbong]

184. Wow

> So obviously, "loose gun laws" had no impact (since they didn't exist in either place).

So obviously, there were no other factors affecting the murder rate. (since you don't get it)



> it doesn't logically follow- especially when the same was true (comparing murder rates) before there was *any* gun control.

Not in the slightest. Your lack of understanding of statistics is par for the course. You do understand there are OTHER factors than gun control to explain murder rates, right?



Wow. Unbelievable.

[hack89]

131. All we can say is that more guns did not create more gun violence.

how many times are you going to lie about our views?

[bongbong]

134. Still a lie

> All we can say is that more guns did not create more gun violence.

Saying that is still a lie, no matter how many times you repeat it.

[X_Digger]

142. No correlation means no correlation. Or are you recanting, now? n/t

[hack89]

143. So let's see your evidence.

use the FBI crime data to show me a single indicator that there has been an increase in gun violence.

I have asked several times - when are you going to finally put up?

[bongbong]

170. HIlarous

> So let's see your evidence.

You made the initial claim, that somehow more guns make you safer. As you gun-relgionists are fond of whining, "PROVE IT!". Make sure you eliminate every single other societal variable that affects crime.

Good luck with it. NRA Talking Points won't save you.

[hack89]

171. No - I have never said guns make me safer.

I said that more guns did not cause more gun violence. You said I was wrong. I asked you to prove it. You can't.

That's where we stand right now.

[bongbong]

172. ask

> I said that more guns did not cause more gun violence.

And that statement is not provable. You should ask one of your fellow gun-religionsts, X-Digger. He agrees with me.

[X_Digger]

174. Perhaps you need a dictionary..

No correlation is exactly what he's saying.

An increase in guns did not result in more gun violence. There was no correlation.

[X_Digger]

182. Keep tap-dancing.

Observable, measurable criteria- you know, honest to dog data? Disproves your supposed correlation.

When you have to resort to supposition, you know you're on shaky ground.

Here are observable facts:

+125,000,000 NICS checks since 1998 when the system came online

-Drop in homicide rate since the peak in 1993 (by over 50%)

Therefore, more guns did not lead to an increase in homicides (or even homicides by gun).

[X_Digger]

187. There is no correlation means it works both ways. That's what you don't get. n/t

[bongbong]

194. Show me

> That's what you don't get.

Show me where I claimed it did.

I will say that the data point that pretty much every country that has effective gun control has a tiny fraction of the gun violence we have, would indicate that loosely-regulated guns cause lotsa murders & massacres. This cuts across many different countries with many different sets of socioeconomic factors. It almost ELIMINATES non-gun socioeconomic factors, in fact. Note I said ALMOST.

I do know that guns are very dangerous, but also understand that a lot of Americans are too scared to leave the house without strapping one on. It seems Liberals are the only people tough enough to not need a gun to function. Pity the poor, scared, wimpy gun-relgionists.

[X_Digger]

195. "cause lotsa murders" -- and yet you said there was no correlation?!? LOL!!

I think you must be having a hard time keeping track of your own positions.

[hack89]

175. Of course it is.

there would be more shootings, more assaults, more armed robberies, more murders - all those crime statistics you refuse to look at.

Yet all of those indicators show a decline. Can you show a single indicator that went up?

[bongbong]

178. Dense, dense, dense.

> there would be more shootings, more assaults, more armed robberies, more murders

Still you're dense. Other factors might've lowered them more than their current numbers, and guns brought them up higher.

I've explained this to you a thousand times. I give up. Try asking X-digger, one of your fellow gun-relgionists, for an explanation.

[hack89]

179. Now you are making a claim - feel free to prove it. "Might've" is not proof. nt

[bongbong]

185. Slow & Dense

You are SUPER DENSE! I am not making a claim either way. I am saying that for YOU to make a claim or imply that "more guns = more safety" is impossible and thus a falsehood.

[hack89]

186. But you agree that it is impossible to show that guns

were responsible for any increase in gun violence.

That's the bottom line - glad we could come to some agreement.

[Remmah2]

85. Violence Policy Center as a resource?

Great shades of WC Fields.

[LanternWaste]

88. Some really industrious NRA PR staffer is probably wondering

"Handgun is mass shooting weapon of choice"

Some really industrious NRA PR staffer is probably wondering if that would make good ad copy to boost sales even higher.

[AsahinaKimi]

110. I was curious what this Springfield 9mm semiautomatic handgun looked like..

This?

or are there others? I know nothing about hand guns.

[Equate]

114. That's the compact model the XD

this is the full size the XDM

[ileus]

119. Lot's of people think the XD's are ugly

but I kinda like the way they look. I just never cared much for the grip safety...

But what would I know, I went with M&P instead.

[rDigital]

167. Boo on the grip safety. nt

[DainBramaged]

117. Wow the defenders of teh gunns has descended on here like flies to poop

So many recent experts too......


amazing.


FYI, unless someone sticks a big bomb in a car, it's hard to do mass murder with even a Chrysler Le Baron, folks usually see and hear the piece of shit coming and can get out of the way.


You can't get out of the way of a bullet.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

118. Solidarity, my freind... solidarity.

[DainBramaged]

149. Whatever floats your magazine....

[onehandle]

120. The quick-draw and dodge is the experts answer to the approaching bullet.

Just holding a gun makes you a hybrid of Dirty Harry and The Flash.

[aikoaiko]

188. I'm glad to see that even you recognize the OP as "poop"

Amazing.

[rrneck]

125. "...said Josh Sugarmann... " Cha-ching.

Another money grubbing lobbyist talking point lapped up by eager consumers.

[RZM]

126. Why is it a 'Jesus gun?'

I don't get the impression any of the shooters you mentioned were doing so for pro-Christian reasons. I guess maybe you could argue that was a factor in the latest one, but I'm not sure. Being anti-Muslim or Sikh or whatever isn't the same as being pro-Christian. Sometimes it is, but not always.

As for Loughner or Aurora, I'm not aware of any religious motivation at all.

[onehandle]

130. Read it as 'ultimate.'

Jesus is sometimes used as a descriptor, as in Jesus (noun).

Not religious.

[Glassunion]

137. I have the solution!

Bolt action handguns... Or sumthin'

[Glassunion]

139. And in other news...

Stamps used on envelopes is method of choice for mailing a letter.

[darkangel218]

176. There is nothing wrong with guns

Guns are awesome, I love em. We need guns to protect ourselves and our loved ones. The right to own guns will never ever change in United States. Cheers!

[aikoaiko]

191. Wow. Now that is a great example of anti-gun fear mongering

Pistols are weapons of choice of mass murderers.

But also police, air marshals, and the security guard at your bank.

And also people who want a reliable firearms for self-defense, recreation, or competition.

Go ahead anti-gun freaks. Try to ban pistols. I'm not worried.

[aikoaiko]

192. Ignore the gun psychos, onehandle.

Signed, Onehandle.

[hack89]

193. I am onehandle ... I mean Spartacus. nt