Figure 1: Cumulative sum of mass shooting casualties, beginning in 1982M08; deaths (red), wounded (pink). October observation for data through 11/6. Source: Mother Jones.
Here’s a detail:
Figure 2: Cumulative sum of mass shooting casualties, beginning in 2007M01; deaths (red), wounded (pink). October observation for data through 11/6. Source: Mother Jones.
This graph is for this commenter.
Figure 3: Cumulative sum of mass shooting casualties, beginning in 1982M08; deaths inflicted by non-Muslims (dark red), wounded inflicted by non-Muslims (pink), deaths inflicted by Muslims (dark blue), wounded inflicted by Muslims (light blue). October observation for data through 10/2. Source: Mother Jones and author’s calculations. Tabulations of religion of perpetrator by author.
The database underpinning these graphs provides some incomplete information on types of weapons used, and demographic breakdown of the perpetrators.
There is no doubt that these random acts of violence are horrible. Guns do kill when brandished by a killer.
Rolling Stone magazine wrote that 1.15 million people have been killed by guns since December, 1980. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/1-15-million-americans-have-been-killed-by-guns-since-john-lennons-death-20151208
That would put our focus on mass murderers using a variety of guns including semi-automatic rifles at about 1.7% of the total. We could devote much more of our bureaucratic and police resources toward that 1.7% by attempting to regulate and enforce such events out of existence, but it is likely to be as effective as carbon capture.
Also, as The Federalist points out, knives killed five times as many people as rifles (2013). This includes all deaths, not just random mass attacks. http://thefederalist.com/2014/11/11/knives-kill-more-people-each-year-than-rifles-time-for-knife-control/
The point I’ve made before on this subject is that if we were serious about reducing gun deaths (we can ignore knife attacks), our focus would be based on a Pareto analysis rather than spectacular, sporadic events.
But suppose assault rifles were actually banned. What would a deranged mass shooter use? https://i.imgur.com/9bWV5Eb.png
Make that 0.17%
I was surprised by the claim that knives kill more people than guns. Maybe that’s true for rifles alone, but according to the FBI firearms in general account for 5 times as many killings and many, many more serious injuries. When I did a Google search on the topic, the Federalist article came out on top, but a Snopes posting debunking the claim was number two: https://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/baseballbats.asp.
I am an American working outside the US, and I continue to be surprised at all the rationalizations for gun violence from my fellow countrymen. Studies have shown over and over again that gun deaths correlates with the number of guns. The US has an astronomical number of guns. Most other developed countries have relatively few. It is not because the US has more criminals or mentally ill people than other countries.
No, snopes is quite wrong on this account. Just check FBI statistics. Rifles and shotguns are a small portion of overall murders by gun. Discounting suicides, gang shootings are the largest segment and those are primarily pistols.
“One in four younger U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances…The survey by the Pew Research Center, one of the most exhaustive ever of U.S. Muslims… “It is a hair-raising number,” said Radwan Masmoudi, president of the Washington-based Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy.”
I suspect, much less than 1% of U.S. non-Muslims believe it’s acceptable under any circumstances to commit mass murder.
it seems recent history indicates it is the us non-muslims we should be concerned with in regards to committing mass murder.
You should be concerned with murder rates by blacks and Hispanics, where you live, and prevalence of drug use. Muslims are only 1% of the U.S. population.
The homicide rate of blacks per 100,000 is 19.5, Hispanics 5.3, and whites 2.5.
Homicide rates in big cities are up to 85 per 100,000.
Homicide rates were higher from the mid-60s to the the mid-90s, when illegal drug use was higher. They’re down to 1950s levels today.
Baffled claims: “it seems recent history indicates it is the us non-muslims we should be concerned with in regards to committing mass murder.” while conveniently forgetting the recent NYC truck murders.
I live in New York City. I used to run on that bike path a lot. So that episode hits home with me. I do not blame Muslims for that no more than I blame Christians for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings. Could we leave religion and race out of this?
PGL, we could if they did. Have you forgotten 9/1/1?
this discussion board is on gun violence.
Murders per 100,000 is 4.88 in the U.S.. Many other countries have higher murder rates:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Intentional Homicides/100,000 for G7 countries:
USA = 4.88
CAN = 1.68
FRA = 1.58
UK = 0.92
GER = 0.85
ITA = 0.78
JPN = 0.31
Can you recommend a different peer group? I’m sure that mine is biased in some way.
The U.S. has a younger population:
https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-08/these-maps-show-where-world-s-youngest-and-oldest-people-live
The world average is 6.2 per 100,000.
Here’s how median age lines up with intentional homicides/100,000. Maybe there’s some correlation for the oldest of countries (~45), but relationship doesn’t seem to hold for a median age of roughly 40.
USA = 4.88 (median age = 41.7)
CAN = 1.68 (median age = 37.6)
FRA = 1.58 (median age = 40.9)
UK = 0.92 (median age = 40.4)
GER = 0.85 (median age = 46.1)
ITA = 0.78 (median age = 44.5)
JPN = 0.31 (median age = 46.1)
By referencing the wold average, are you suggesting that a better peer group to compare the USA’s performance against is, the world?
The U.S. median age is 37.6.
It’s just one of many factors.
Well done! I hinted at doing this but you did the real work. We await Peak’s next level of spin.
The countries you list have three things in common that the U.S. does not:
1. a smaller population
2. a relatively homogeneous population ethnicity
3. relatively limited immigration that is well controlled (except for recently in Germany http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/25/migrant-crime-germany-rises-50-per-cent-new-figures-show/)
The murder rate in the U.S. is heavily skewed toward the black population. Among the black population involved in murder, the murder incidence is heavily skewed toward the criminal/gang subset.
When you subtract suicides and gang-related murders in the U.S., you are left with a small percentage of random, often family homicides and murder-by-strangers. The risk of the latter two is less than 1 percent of preventable deaths in hospitals.
Bruce Hall: If you assert Canada is “relatively homogenous”, then I will assert you haven’t been in Canada recently.
Canada is more homogeneous than the U.S. with a large white/European ancestry population, some native North American population, and an Asian population that is relatively larger than the one in the U.S. Other groups (including blacks who are the most violent segment of U.S. population) are present, but not significant.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-OdhNhEbI30s/WWt5Z4x2eeI/AAAAAAAAPPc/JcKpUmrCM3YuTK00aOwwdORKDDj3Ds2mQCLcBGAs/s1600/e-canada-us-population-by-approximate-us-race-ethnicity-category-2006-pie.png
http://politicalcalculations.blogspot.com/2011/03/us-vs-canada-comparing-apples-to-apples.html#.WgOacBNSxsM
You may have an issue with restating Canadian statistics along U.S. categories, but it seems fairly reasonable.
Sure – war torn nations have higher murder rates. Compare the US to Europe, Canada, or Japan and 4.88 per 100K is high.
I didn’t know Central and South America are “war torn.”
Why not compare to world average?
This just went from dumb to dumber.
Many other poor, war-torn countries do, yes.
PT: Yes, lots of countries have higher murder rates than the USA. Except they are with few exceptions, all developing countries.
The only developed country exceptions I could find are Lithuania, St. Pierre and Miquelon, a French dependency and Greenland, which is not a country but an autonomous region that is part of Denmark.
I suppose one way that the USA can demonstrate solidarity with poor countries is via a high murder rate.
Congratulations.
Well, I am sure that Peak Trader is really pleased that all talk of banninig bumper stocks for guns has disappeared. Right after the Las Vegas shooting even the NRA was mumbling about how maybe those should be restricted, although we needed to wait for the appropriate period of thoughts and prayers before doing so. Well, that period ended with the more recent mass murders, so now we can forget restricting those nice bump stocks so that all-American non-Muslim white people can be able to kill lots of people easily.
In the meantime, once we finish up with all the prayers for the people in Sutherland Springs (I notice that the politicians are not handing out any thoughts this time, just prayers, I mean heck, those killed got it in a church), well, we can move on to doing something like what was done in Virginia after the VA Tech massacre, making it easier to get guns. In this case we should probably require everybody going to church to carry a gun, except for those dumb wimpy pacifist churches that don’t like guns, who obviously deserve to have their congregants slaughtered by all-American macho white non-Muslim males carrying powerful guns, preferably bolstered up by some helpful bump stocks.
The Founders made plenty of mistakes. The Second Amendment is only one of many. But we’re stuck with it, so I guess we have to deal with the damn thing. OTOH, no one seriously disputes that the government cannot infringe on the right to own and bear arms. For example, conservative politicians have long supported laws that prevent felons from owning guns. In fact, many of those laws were pushed by the NRA back in the 1960s because of white voters who feared various black power groups. The Second Amendment says nothing about being able to infringe on the rights of felons, but yet everyone is find with it. So what we’re really looking for are sensible infringements. And here are a few:
(1) Limit the number of rounds to something reasonable. No one needs a 100 or even 30 round clips or magazines. The old M1 Garand rifle had 8 rounds and it was good enough to win WW2.
(2) Prohibit semi-automatic weapons. If you’re that bad of a shot that you need a semi-automatic gun, then you have no business owning one.
(3) Tax the hell out of ammunition.
(4) Hold gun owners responsible for crimes committed with stolen guns. Each year there are about 400,000 stolen guns.
(5) Try adopting Australia’s approach. Australia had a horrific gun problem, but then they instituted sensible laws that don’t infringe on anyone’s legitimate right to own a gun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
(6) Get rid of right to carry laws. The empirical evidence is in and right to carry laws increase murder rates.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w23510
The good news is that gun ownership is getting more and more concentrated among a smaller and smaller percentage of people. Just 3% of American adults own almost half of all firearms. And that’s a shrinking demographic that is heavily concentrated in older Americans.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/19/us-gun-ownership-survey
More good news. Gun manufacturers are in financial trouble. Colt just went bankrupt a couple years ago and the analysts for DoD’s industrial base office tell me that at least one other major gun manufacturer has one foot in the grave and another on a banana peel.
2slugbaits, the founding fathers were very wise to allow Americans to protect themselves from enemies, foreign and domestic. More Americans need to join the NRA to learn how to handle guns. Then, our enemies will think twice about attacking innocent people.
Oh yea – our military is so weak that if the Mexicans attacked us we would need private gun owners to save us. Your defense of military assault weapons available to any nut case is really weak.
Ah…still living that “Red Dawn” fantasy. If America has to rely upon farm kids and old white geezers with semi-automatic rifles, then we’re done for. Fortunately we don’t.
You don’t need much physical strength to pick off the enemy with weapons. An old lady can do it. You just need tens of millions of Americans willing to fight. Americans did it in the Revolutionary War.
still living in the red dawn fantasy.
PeakTrader You don’t need much physical strength to pick off the enemy with weapons.
Obviously you’ve never fired the kind of weapons used by a modern military.
You just need tens of millions of Americans willing to fight. Americans did it in the Revolutionary War
Now you’ve switched movies to Mel Gibson’s “The Patriot.” Another fantasy. Bad Hollywood movies combined with bad high school versions of the Revolutionary War.
2slug, we could implement your suggestions if we simply ignored the 4th amendment and shut down the 1st amendment. Your suggestions couldn’t be stopped and no one would (could) complain. Damn those pesky rights.
It seems to me that most conservatives are quite happy to ignore the 4th Amendment. Certainly justices like Scalia took a very cramped view of its wording. As to shutting down the 1st Amendment, I’m not seeing that unless you belong to the Religion of Gun Toting Jesus.
2slugs,
So many fallacies and misconceptions. I’d have to rank gun control right up there with climate change as an area of extreme ignorance among progressives. In the interests of time, I’ll focus on a few fallacies:
Felons owning guns: These laws did not come out of the 1960s and were not motivated by racism. The first law that prohibited gun ownership of those convicted of violent felonies was the Federal Firearms Act of 1938, which followed upon the National Firearms Act of 1934. Both were reactions to the violence of prohibition. The Gun Control Act of 1968’s push began with the assassination of JFK and moved over the finish line following the 1968 assassinations of RFK and MLK. But neither of these laws are applicable to church shooter Devin Kelley. Kelley was prohibited owning from firearms by the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 under 2 provisions: 1) dishonorable discharge; and 2) domestic violence
Australia: as I’ve pointed out before, the data on death by firearm in Australia is readily available. The rate of death by homicide and suicide had been declining for many years before the passage of Australia’s gun confiscation and continued to decline afterwards. The gun confiscation had no obvious effect on that trend. Moreover, I’ve also pointed out before that Australia does not have key constitutional protections that we enjoy in America. We can’t adopt Australia’s policy and we shouldn’t if we could, since it was ineffective and unnecessary.
The NBER paper you referenced: First, the paper does not find that right-to-carry laws increase the murder rate, as you falsely asserted. In fact the paper finds that right-to-carry laws have no impact on murder rates. Instead, it argues that right-to-carry laws increase violent crime rates, which are primarily aggravated assaults.
I use this paper as an example of what I call “evidence without theory” in my free market econometrics class at Wossomotta U. If the paper is right, what is the mechanism for how that is supposed to work? We have independent data on concealed carry permit holders and they commit virtually no crimes. If the concealed carry holders are not responsible for the alleged spike in the assault rate, then it must be the non-permit holders. So, somehow we are supposed to believe that allowing people to carry handguns concealed encourages criminals to commit more assaults than they otherwise would have? Why? How does that work?
This paper is a data mining exercise that I use as an illustration in my class on how econometrics can be a dangerous weapon in the hands of progressive zealots. (I find many good examples on this blog too.) I sometimes wonder whether “econometrics” should be defined as a weapon in the Brady bill and a “prohibited person” to be a progressive zealot? That would probably make the world safer–for freedom at least.
Americans have always been violent. We had a long and violent revolution. We fought indians and outlaws with violence. We settled a Civil War with violence. We won foreign wars with violence.
General Patton’s opening speech to the Third Army:
“Men, all this stuff you hear about America not wanting to fight, wanting to stay out of the war, is a lot of bullshit. Americans love to fight. All real Americans love the sting and clash of battle. When you were kids, you all admired the champion marble shooter, the fastest runner, the big-league ball players and the toughest boxers. Americans love a winner and will not tolerate a loser. Americans play to win all the time. That’s why Americans have never lost and will never lose a war. The very thought of losing is hateful to Americans. Battle is the most significant competition in which a man can indulge. It brings out all that is best and it removes all that is base.”
Of course, there are cowards and losers, who want to wear protective gear and kill defenseless people. That’s one reason responsible Americans need guns. However, deterrence is the biggest reason.
You are basically advocating that we tell our children to take guns to high school. Thank God my high school kicked any nut case with a gun out as we faced enough other issues besides a nut case shooting up the hall way.
My father-in-laws high school yearbook (circa 1947) from east Pittsburgh had a photo of the shooting club, about 75 teens, posing rifles in hand, in from of the school. Evidently it was quite accepted.
JMM, quite accepted up until the 60s, even in the3 DC area schools.
peak, did you wear an american uniform and fight in battle?
I’ve never been called to battle.
What about you.
i am not the one writing about the romance of war and battle.
I’m not either.
Is that your reason to weasel out of an answer.
that is exactly what you are doing with the patton quote. if you want to be a hack, own up to it. we will see how romantic you feel war is once you are actually on the battlefield. it would be like a president who dodges the draft and then questions the integrity of a pow. lack of integrity.
If I had a gun when a criminal or a terrorist was killing innocent people, he’d soon be rotting in hell.
If he knew I had a gun, the coward would flee and maybe look for a soft target.
more than likely, you would be one of the many gun owners with a self inflicted wound from the incident.
I suspect Peak had bone spurs.
2slugbaits, you’re wrong as usual.
“Americans have always been violent. We had a long and violent revolution. We fought indians and outlaws with violence. We settled a Civil War with violence. We won foreign wars with violence.”
I see you know nothing about European history.
It’s been a while, since people in Europe settled the wild frontier, although some Europeans took great risks to settle the American frontier.
yep adopt our gun policy.
I am amazed at your country. Two massacres in a very short time but it is too early to talk about what to d do. A madman runs over 8 people you must immediately change immigration policy.
Imagine what will occur when the ISIS inspired idiots discover semi-automatics ( which shouls NEVEr be allowed to be sold) and bump stocks!
CoRev asks me “PGL, we could if they did. Have you forgotten 9/1/1?”
Dude – the date is 9/11/2001 and no New Yorker will ever forget that date. I pass by the World Trade Center every day that I take the PATH to Hoboken. So no I have not forgotten. And we New Yorkers do not blame our precious Muslim neighbors. Stop the racist garbage as it serves the terrorist interests.
CoRev Have you forgotten 9/1/1?
Have your forgotten 12/7/41? It makes about as much sense. BTW, the 9/11 killers didn’t use guns, so it’s kind of off topic, as is your reference to the ISIS inspired truck driver in NYC.
The entire blame the Muslims rag is off topic as well as being disgusting.
PGL & 2slugs, sorry for the typo, but the point was to PGL’s insistence re: Muslims: ” I do not blame Muslims for that no more than I blame Christians for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombings. Could we leave religion and race out of this?”
The silliest argument is to blame the weapon of choice and to ignore the act. When we include the other weapons used the numbers shift, but that’s not the selectively chosen issue.
CoRev When we include the other weapons used the numbers shift, but that’s not the selectively chosen issue.
Let’s deal with one problem at a time. We know that guns are responsible for a lot of murders. There are things that we can do to reduce the number of murders due to guns. The fact that we cannot eliminate all murders committed by deranged gun owners is not a reason to do nothing about at least some of the avoidable murders. Same logic applies with respect to other weapons. Arsenic can kill people. Ricin can kill people. Cars can be used as weapons. No one objects to laws that regulate arsenic. No one objects when the FBI raids a house producing ricin. No one thinks we shouldn’t block off streets to provide at least some protection for pedestrians.
This is a common ploy used by conservatives. Note that the proposed solution won’t entirely solve every problem, therefore we shouldn’t even attempt to solve some of the problems. The perfect becomes the enemy of the good. Gun technologies that dramatically reduce the likelihood of children killing themselves shouldn’t be mandated because the technology is not quite 100% effective. Incredible.
2slugbaits, it goes without saying, no guns, no gun deaths, like no cars, no car deaths. Will that result in fewer “deranged” individuals? If not, what will you use for protection? Of course, deterrence is more or less out the window. Do you expect criminals to follow laws?
Why is it many countries have much fewer guns per capita, but much higher murder rates:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
2slugs, showing his brainwashing: “We know that guns areresponsible for a lot of murders.” No, they are not responsible! And, that’s why I recognized the “act” versus the “selectively chosen issue”, guns and particularly semi automatic rifles that look like military versions.
People, are responsible for all murders. Guns may be used to carry them out by those PEOPLE. These people are “deranged” that own many things capable of killing people. The recent weapon of choice for the mass murder is the auto since guns are already hard to get.
A common ploy used by liberals is to blame the object versus the person using it. Why? too often that person is of their same liberal/political mind set, as well as being deranged by the constant brain washing.
Evil is evil. Deranged evil is very dangerous, especially when they are angry, brain washed liberals with access to the selectively chosen weapon defined by the brain washing.
Remember when SUVs were the cause of global warming?
This tragic event provides yet another example of what I’ve talked about repeatedly over the years: armed citizens prevent gun violence and mass shootings, and sometimes prevent mass shootings from escalating to become much worse.
Farida Brown had already been shot four times by the murdering Devin Kelley, who had shouted “everybody dies, motherf*!&ers,” and was walking back and forth, continuing to shoot people. Brown knew that she was only seconds from death. Suddenly a man appeared at the front door and fired at Kelley, causing him to drop his Ruger AR-556. The man who fired the shot that saved Brown’s life was former NRA instructor Steven Willeford, who lived close to the church. After hearing the shots, Willeford grabbed his own AR-15 and rushed to the church to confront the shooter. Willeford had managed to aim a shot to Kelley’s side, which got through his bullet proof vest. Kelley drew his pistol and got into a brief gun battle with Willeford. Kelly then jumped into his SUV to escape, but Willeford scored another hit on Kelly has he ran to his vehicle. Willeford managed to shoot out the windows as Kelly raced away.
Kelly had shown up at the church wearing a bulletproof vest, with many guns, much ammunition, and a murderous grudge against his mother-in-law. He obviously expected to keep killing other people after he was done at the church. In fact, out on the street in front of the church, he fired a shot at another man who ran inside. That shot went through the house and almost killed the man’s child. But instead of carrying out the next step in his plan, a confused Kelly was now wounded and on the run, thanks to the man with the AR 15.
Willeford, who was barefoot because he had not even taken time to put on his shoes, flagged down local Johnnie Langendorff, who had witnessed the gun battle while sitting in his pickup truck. Together, they sped off in pursuit of Kelley, keeping the pressure on so that Kelley could not kill anyone else. After a chase at speeds of up to 95 mph, Kelley crashed into a ditch. Kelley called his father to say that he’d been wounded and wouldn’t make it. Willeford kept his rifle trained on the wrecked SUV until the police arrived to find Kelley dead.
Willeford and Langedorff saved countless lives that day. This is what the second amendment is all about: free men and women have the right to protect their own lives, the lives of their families, and those of their fellow citizens; but unfree men and women cower before evil in the desperate and most often vain hope that the police will arrive in time. This case proves once again that when seconds count the police are only minutes away. Willeford knew every shot he heard was a shot aimed at one of his friends, someone he knew, or someone he grew up with, and he wasn’t going to pause even to put on his shoes before grabbing his rifle.
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental human right of a free people, and it must be protected and defended.
26 lives were lost because you want to allow random folks to carry assault weapons freely. those folks would not be dead if assault weapons were banned. as Dean Winslow, a retired Air Force colonel noted recently in a congressional hearing, “how insane it is that in the United States of America a civilian can go out and buy … a semi-automatic assault rifle like an AR-15, which apparently was the weapon that was used,’
rick stryker is willing to sacrifice the lives of 26 innocent civilians so that he can promote his ideology of how guns are necessary to eliminate gun violence. but gun violence would not exist if guns were banned. and 26 lives would have been saved. what a warped world rick stryker lives in.
It sounds like Rick Stryker thinks he should be able to carry guns and box cutters on airplanes because there’s always the remote possibility that Action Hero Rick might have to spring into action and save otherwise doomed flight from those perfidious terrorists.
Baffled, your ignorance still amazes. An assault rifle like … to continue to define your “like” reference is unnecessary, as what you are trying to define is just a platform, AR-14, AR-10. You probably believe that the AR stands for Assault rifle.
The reason I use the term platform is because, that is exactly what it has become, a basic frame upon which many modifications are available to build a tailor made sports rifle, http://blog.cheaperthandirt.com/the-ar-15-platform-as-a-hunting-rifle/ . It is logically similar to an auto platform with different number of doors, engines, transmissions, electronic options.
ARs are popular as a sports rifle because of the same features that makes it popular as a military weapon, light weight, flawless actions, accuracy, inexpensive ammunition, etc.
Corev,
Exactly right. People who don’t shoot don’t realize that it’s the customizability of the AR-15 along with other features you mention that makes it so popular with shooters as a sporting rifle. The news media, dominated by progressives, is desperately trying to learn about these rifles (wish they’d learn about them before trying to ban them) but they just can’t get it right. I wonder if you saw the hilarious example from Usa Today in which they have a short video that attempts to show as many scary customizations as possible. As usual, their ignorance got the best of them and they went too far, beclowning themselves by depicting a chainsaw bayonet AR-15 attachment. Twitter went wild with mockery. Of course, you can buy a chainsaw bayonet attachment from an online company but it’s a joke item for people who want to say that they are prepared to fight their way to safety during the zombie apocalypse. These attachments serve no practical purpose but apparently the people at USA today thought they are real. I bet a lot of their readers did too.
Amazing. These journalists want to ban “assault rifles” because they think people put chainsaw bayonets on them.
ARs are popular as a sports rifle because of the same features that makes it popular as a military weapon, light weight, flawless actions, accuracy, inexpensive ammunition, etc.
Huh? What sport are you talking about? In many states you cannot hunt with rifles of any kind. If you want to hunt deer you must use shotguns with deer slugs. Why? Because taking down a deer requires a caliber larger than 0.223, and larger caliber rounds travel too far. As to target shooting at ranges, I’m sure plenty of people bring assault rifles, but I have no idea why. It’s precisely because the rounds are smaller and the ammunition is cheaper that you wouldn’t want to use an assault rifle to practice your marksmanship, unless you’re really into shooting with “Kentucky windage.” I suspect people bring assault rifles to shooting ranges because it makes them feel like Rambo. And why would anyone want to bring a semi-automatic rifle to a firing range unless that person just got his or her jollies out of blasting away like some movie action hero?
You’re right that light weight is one very important reason why the military uses the M16 rifle (and M4 carbine), which is a military version of the AR-15. Weight is a critical issue; however, there are plenty of downsides with the 5.56mm M16. For one thing, it’s very fussy about the gunpowder burn rate of the ammo. [The M16 performed so poorly in Vietnam because the gas ports would clog due to incomplete burning, and that would cause the weapon to jam. So much for “flawless action”. ] Another problem is that the round is too small and is not accurate at range. As a result, troops typically carry 630 rounds (i.e., 30 in the gun and 20 magazines of 30 each) rather than the doctrinally assumed 210 rounds. That’s a lot of weight to lug around in addition to body armor. In any event, the M16’s days are numbered. The military is developing a new standard rifle with a larger caliber round. Much closer to the old M1, M14 and M14 based sniper rifles. Similar story regarding the NATO standard 9mm M9 handgun. It’s a goner too.
2slugs, try doing research instead of ranting about something you obviously don’t know much about. Vietnam??? ” What sport are you talking about? In many states you cannot hunt with rifles of any kind.” Many states???? Most states allow hunting with rifle3s, including those surrounding your area. From the VA regulations: “Northern VA … All legal deer hunting weapons including bows, crossbows, muzzleloaders, pistols, shotguns, and rifles are legal. Local firearms ordinances still apply.” Although some states do restrict areas where rifles are allowed.
Your comments about accuracy of assault rifles also show your shooting ignorance. As well your ignorance about why troops carry as many rounds as they possible can. You seem to think running our of ammo in a fight isn’t important. Nor is the doctrine of overwhelming power high on your knowledge list. Why is it do you think that the majority of military hand carried shooting weaponry is full auto or semi-auto?
For someone in the DoD community you sure don’t show any real knowledge of how the war fighters think nor their needs. But, I’m really not surprised by that.
2slugs,
You continue to show that you nothing about guns. The AR-15 is a very popular hunting rifle, and yes indeed it’s used for deer, in .223 and other calibers. One very popular load for hunting whitetail deer using an AR-15 in .223 caliber is the Winchester Power Max Bonded Ammunition 223 Remington 64 Grain
People who want to ban AR-15s because they think they are a military weapons know nothing about AR-15s.
hey idiot, you have an issue with the “like AR-15..” statement? well, your issue is with retired air force colonel dean winslow, not me, since that is his quote. colonel winslow happens to be a trump nominee. improve your reading comprehension corev.
Baffled, why the anger? Some one challenge your own knowledge?
you didn’t challenge my knowledge. you challenged colonel dean winslow-trump nominee. basically because of your reading comprehension failure. and not anger, just my typical reaction to your idiot statements.
Baffled claims: ” just my typical (angry0 reaction) to your idiot statements.” How did you do howling at the sky yesterday?
Baffled & 2slugs et al who want to ban the AR-15. Please let me insist that the AR-15 is just a platform. Be3low is a list of calibers that the AR-15 can be modified to shoot.
AR-15, without bolt modification
.17 Remington
.17/223
.20 Tactical
.20 Practical
.20 Vartag
.204 Ruger
.221 Fireball
.222 Remington
.222 Remington Magnum
.223 Remington (5.56x45mm)
.223 Remington Ackley Improved
6x45mm
6mm TCU
6x47mm
6mm Whisper
.25x45mm
6.5mm Whisper
7mm Whisper
7mm TCU
.300 Whisper (.300/221, .300 Fireball)
.338 Whisper
AR-15, with bolt modification
223 WSSM
5.45x39mm (.21 Genghis)
243 WSSM
6mm PPC
6mm WOA
6mm BR Remington
6mm Hagar
6.5mm PPC
6.5 WSSM
6.5 WOA
6.5mm Grendel
25 WSSM
6.8x43mm SPC
.30 Herrett Rimless Tactical (6.8x43mm case trimmed to 41mm and necked up to .308; the 6.8mm version of the .300 Whisper)
7.62×25
7.62x39mm
.30 RAR
300 OSSM
.357 Auto
.35 Gremlin (necked up 6.5 Grendel to 358)
.358 WSSM (various names, but all are some form of a WSSM necked up to 35 caliber, some are shortened to make them big game legal in Indiana)
.458 SOCOM
.50 Action Express
.50 Beowulf
AR-15 using a simple blowback operation
.17 HMR
.22 LR
.22 WMR
9x19mm
9×21
9×23
30 Carbine
357 Sig
40S&W
400 Cor-Bon
41 Action Express
10mm Auto
45 GAP
45ACP
45 Super
45 Win Mag
This list is in no way complete
This is the simplest set of modifications that can be made to this shooting platformto make it a sporting rifle. Calibers range from air pellet gun size (.177) to large enough to drop a Water Buffalo.
But, but, but it has features like a military assault weapon, and that is bad. Even though those same features also make it a great sporting rifle.
Of course you can remove those visible features that frighten the ignorant, and it will still be the same, albeit less effective, rifle.
corev, instead of wrongly accusing others, why not simply improve your reading comprehension? idiot.
So much ignorance. An assault rifle is a regular rifle that has cosmetic differences that make it look scary enough that progressives think it should be banned. The Texas church shooter used a Ruger AR-556. But that’s essentially the same rifle as this one.
This tragedy has nothing to do with military weapons being in the hands of the public. The shooter could have used a 12-guage shotgun instead, loaded with 3″ magnum #1 buckshot. Each shell contains 24 30 caliber pellets. The shooter was in the church for 16 minutes before being interrupted by Willeford’s AR-15 fire. He could have easily killed all those people even if all “assault rifles” were banned. You are simply wrong on the facts.
Nice story, along with a lot of misdirection. No one should have a right to buy 100 round banana clips or magazines. Limiting the number of rounds before reloading would greatly reduce the lethality of any one weapon. No one should have the right to a semi-automatic weapon. Reducing the rate at which rounds can be fired would greatly reduce the lethality of any one weapon. People have legitimate reasons for wanting to own bolt-action or single shot rifles. I don’t think anyone is talking about prohibiting those. The discussion is about semi-automatic weapons with large magazine capacities.
BTW, it must have been really crappy body armor if it allowed a 0.223 round to penetrate…or else an extremely lucky hit in the seams of the armor. But there is a lot of bad body armor out there in the commercial world. That’s why the US military wouldn’t allow US soldiers to use commercial body armor sent by worried parents to their deployed kids. I don’t know if you’ve ever picked up real, military grade body armor, but it’s pretty damn heavy. Also, Willeford should have used a larger caliber bolt action rifle if he wanted to increase lethality and accuracy at a distance. The muzzle velocity out of an AR-15 using commercial grade gunpowder would not be my first choice if I wanted to stop someone like Kelley.
2slugs,
You don’t seem familiar with the facts, which I guess is typical. Willeford was only 20 yards from Kelley so a bolt action rifle would not have made sense at all. In Willeford’s view, as he said in an interview, the AR-1 was ideal for the situation. Also, Kelley was wearing the type of body armor that has plates on the front and back, but not on the sides. Willeford is a former NRA shooting instructor and was able to hit Kelley in the side.
It’s a ridiculous argument to punish law abiding gun owners, by limiting their constitutional rights, for the actions of one person, or one in a million. And, it seems, some people believe possessing a gun turns someone into a murderer.
One interesting theory is lead paint causes murder:
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2013/05/us-murder-rate-track-be-lowest-century/
Perhaps, certain psychiatric drugs cause mass murder.
That is, lead paint and lead in gasoline.
I’m wondering why nobody yet has mentioned the fact the illegal aliens commit 5,369 murders in the U.S. every year.
Totally irrelevant statement, but what’s your Source?
Gene, over 5,000 murders each year by illegal immigrants is acceptable to many people in the country.
https://www.google.com/amp/thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/crime/329589-the-truth-about-crime-illegal-immigrants-and-sanctuary-cities%3famp
“Gene, over 5,000 murders each year by illegal immigrants is acceptable to many people in the country.”
So your solution is to arm as many US citizens as possible to generate a high probability of being killed by an US citizen? Interesting concept. At least you show some original thought.
So, your solution is more murders by illegal immigrants to reduce the probability of being murdered by a U.S. citizen, and disarm law abiding Americans to increase the probability of being killed by a criminal. At least, you’re consistent.
Mass Killings
– unattached or mentally troubled white males disaffected with society taking deliberate and elaborate preparations (multiple weapons, flak jacket, etc.) to attack an unarmed concentration of people at some innocent gathering place (movie, school, concert, church)
– total incidents last five years (Mother Jones database): 35 events; 173 fatalities (about half from the last two events); per year: 35 fatalities, 4.4 events
– Multiple of mass killings (this category): 1.0x
– Multiple of US lightening strike deaths (51 per year): 0.67x
Terrorism or Radicalization Mass Killings
– terrorist acts, by Muslims or other radicalized persons (not necessarily Muslim related), using guns (but excluding bombs, trucks or other available means), always with premeditation, but generally in support of a political or religious ideology, although again, disaffected males feature prominently
– total incidents last five years (Mother Jones database): 9 events; 104 fatalities; per year: 21 fatalities, 1.8 events
– Multiple of mass killings (above): 0.6x
– Multiple of US lightening strike deaths (51 per year): 0.4x
Guns per capita by country:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
Comparing murder rates per capita suggests people cause murders, not guns, knives, bombs, cars, etc..
Meant murder rates by country, not per capita.
Although, mass shootings is a very rare event, it has taken place more often in recent decades. Why weren’t there more mass shootings when guns were more popular and accessible?
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.globalresearch.ca/mass-shootings-in-america-a-historical-review/5355990/amp
Just to highlight some of what Peak’s reference said: “Shooters of the last thirty years
65/67 shooters had mental health issues
55/67 obtained weapons legally…”
Just how do we outlaw/control mental health issues?
How do we better enforce the already existent gun laws?
Can anyone confirm what kind of rifle was used by the neighbor who shot Kelley, the shooter in Texas? I have heard that it was an AR-15.
Corev,
I describe the facts in my comment above. Welleford did use an AR-15, with an eotech red dot sight. He is a former NRA shooting instructor and his three children became NRA distinguished pistol experts by age 8.