On the Butler mass shooting: this is something that needs to be re-framed. It was a mass-shooting--defined by four or more people being shot--that the Trump campaign has spun as some kind of political violence targeting Trump. It was not that, it was closer to a troubled kid who went out to kill people just like school shooters do, but t…
On the Butler mass shooting: this is something that needs to be re-framed. It was a mass-shooting--defined by four or more people being shot--that the Trump campaign has spun as some kind of political violence targeting Trump. It was not that, it was closer to a troubled kid who went out to kill people just like school shooters do, but targeting Trump was his way of "dying loudly" rather than going for a body count.
Calling it "an assassination attempt" makes it about Trump rather than being about the victims as a group--one of which is dead, two others were in critical condition--while all the attention goes to the guy who got the tip of his ear cut. Shit reminds me of dudes who I saw get a tiny cut on their cheek from an IED explosion trying to get purple hearts alongside dudes who lost legs and shit like that. This mass shooting should be more about those victims than it is about Trump.
The other night I looked up the firing rate of an AR-15. It is 400 to 800 per minute. That is roughly 7 to 14 per second. The choice of mass shooters yet anyone can own one.
That’s on full auto. Full-auto ARs aren’t for sale unless you go through an extremely lengthly background check and pay a bunch of extra $$$. Regular old ARs are semi-auto (one trigger pull = one round fired).
Thanks for the info, Travis. How about bump stocks? I heard a lot about them being mentioned but to my knowledge they are legal. By the way, I'm not a gun owner. (not against the 2nd amendment) And have never felt the need for one. Whenever I hear someone use the argument about needing one for protection I think perhaps they should move to a different neighborhood.
Yes, bump stocks do rapidly increase the rate of fire. They're in a different category and can be purchased and installed pretty easily. For a legit full-auto AR you need to go through the "NFA" process (national firearms act of '86). That requires fingerprints, an extra $200 for the application, a notification of the local sheriff's office, and a deeper background check than your typical firearms purchase form. It also takes between 4-10 months to get done. With a bump stock you can just buy it and install it or get it installed by a local armorer. That said, full-auto firearms are *far* less accurate than semi-autos and that's why the military only uses machine guns in a suppression fashion to keep an enemy's head down while the riflemen advance. Soldiers using the M4 rifle are trained to only use semi-auto because that's how they make their shots hit. Full-auto on a rifle fire is basically just a good way to run out of ammo while not hitting much. It can only work "well" in situations like the Vegas shooting where the shooter had all of his fish in a barrel via packed audiences. That's where full-auto becomes lethal: when humans are packed together like pickles in a jar at a concert rather than spread apart like in a Walmart or a school.
ARs are indeed actually better for home defense because rifle rounds are more precise than handgun rounds--making them less likely to hit the wrong thing, and they're also more lethal--often requiring only a single center-mass hit to put someone down whereas a handgun may need 4-5 rounds to achieve the same thing (And again, they're less accurate). I'd rather fire fewer shots in a much more accurate fashion with a rifle than fire multiple shots that are less accurate with a handgun personally.
To put the lethality difference into context, you can tell almost immediately when a mass-shooting happens what kind of weapon was used via the dead-to-wounded ratio. If there are like 20 people shot and only 3-6 of them dead, most likely a handgun was used. If 20 people were shot and 17 of them are dead, most likely an AR-15 was used. .223/5.56 rounds tumble and fragment at close range when they hit things, making them much more lethal than a handgun bullet that at best expands in the case of hollow point ammo. AR-15 rounds are hitting things at close range at more than twice the velocity of handgun ammo and then kind of "explode" inside of the target when they fragment, causing a much wider internal wound channel with a lot more force behind it. Think of the physics equation for energy where velocity gets squared while mass is a single variable, making velocity a much larger component of kinetic energy and that's why AR-15s are so powerful when compared to handguns even though their bullets weigh less than half of what handgun bullets weigh and are a lot thinner via diameter.
On the Butler mass shooting: this is something that needs to be re-framed. It was a mass-shooting--defined by four or more people being shot--that the Trump campaign has spun as some kind of political violence targeting Trump. It was not that, it was closer to a troubled kid who went out to kill people just like school shooters do, but targeting Trump was his way of "dying loudly" rather than going for a body count.
Calling it "an assassination attempt" makes it about Trump rather than being about the victims as a group--one of which is dead, two others were in critical condition--while all the attention goes to the guy who got the tip of his ear cut. Shit reminds me of dudes who I saw get a tiny cut on their cheek from an IED explosion trying to get purple hearts alongside dudes who lost legs and shit like that. This mass shooting should be more about those victims than it is about Trump.
It was clearly an assassination attempt. A mass shooting is not aiming to kill one specific person.
It can be both. Mass shootings often begin as someone trying to kill a single person and they just keeping going from there until the cops kill them.
The other night I looked up the firing rate of an AR-15. It is 400 to 800 per minute. That is roughly 7 to 14 per second. The choice of mass shooters yet anyone can own one.
That’s on full auto. Full-auto ARs aren’t for sale unless you go through an extremely lengthly background check and pay a bunch of extra $$$. Regular old ARs are semi-auto (one trigger pull = one round fired).
Thanks for the info, Travis. How about bump stocks? I heard a lot about them being mentioned but to my knowledge they are legal. By the way, I'm not a gun owner. (not against the 2nd amendment) And have never felt the need for one. Whenever I hear someone use the argument about needing one for protection I think perhaps they should move to a different neighborhood.
Yes, bump stocks do rapidly increase the rate of fire. They're in a different category and can be purchased and installed pretty easily. For a legit full-auto AR you need to go through the "NFA" process (national firearms act of '86). That requires fingerprints, an extra $200 for the application, a notification of the local sheriff's office, and a deeper background check than your typical firearms purchase form. It also takes between 4-10 months to get done. With a bump stock you can just buy it and install it or get it installed by a local armorer. That said, full-auto firearms are *far* less accurate than semi-autos and that's why the military only uses machine guns in a suppression fashion to keep an enemy's head down while the riflemen advance. Soldiers using the M4 rifle are trained to only use semi-auto because that's how they make their shots hit. Full-auto on a rifle fire is basically just a good way to run out of ammo while not hitting much. It can only work "well" in situations like the Vegas shooting where the shooter had all of his fish in a barrel via packed audiences. That's where full-auto becomes lethal: when humans are packed together like pickles in a jar at a concert rather than spread apart like in a Walmart or a school.
ARs are indeed actually better for home defense because rifle rounds are more precise than handgun rounds--making them less likely to hit the wrong thing, and they're also more lethal--often requiring only a single center-mass hit to put someone down whereas a handgun may need 4-5 rounds to achieve the same thing (And again, they're less accurate). I'd rather fire fewer shots in a much more accurate fashion with a rifle than fire multiple shots that are less accurate with a handgun personally.
To put the lethality difference into context, you can tell almost immediately when a mass-shooting happens what kind of weapon was used via the dead-to-wounded ratio. If there are like 20 people shot and only 3-6 of them dead, most likely a handgun was used. If 20 people were shot and 17 of them are dead, most likely an AR-15 was used. .223/5.56 rounds tumble and fragment at close range when they hit things, making them much more lethal than a handgun bullet that at best expands in the case of hollow point ammo. AR-15 rounds are hitting things at close range at more than twice the velocity of handgun ammo and then kind of "explode" inside of the target when they fragment, causing a much wider internal wound channel with a lot more force behind it. Think of the physics equation for energy where velocity gets squared while mass is a single variable, making velocity a much larger component of kinetic energy and that's why AR-15s are so powerful when compared to handguns even though their bullets weigh less than half of what handgun bullets weigh and are a lot thinner via diameter.
How many people know who Officer Tippit is?
Our national press frames stories in their way not necessarily with honesty and accuracy and in proper context.
Fair point
I'll bet Trumpster keeps that bandage on his ear until after the election.
Probably.