Depends on what you mean by full of zombies. Less than 20 I'm still taking the shotgun. In the field scenario I guess it depends on how fast the runner is. They are so well suited for "mass killings" but really they don't ever kill more than someone could kill with a pistol and a vest full of clips. 20-30 people is a huge loss of life but to suggest someone couldn't do that with a shotgun or a pistol is not very accurate. As far as firepower and bullets goes here's a what if for you: I get to shoot you once in the leg from 15 yards. You get to pick what you get shot with. A. Standard .223 round B. 00 Buckshot C. Standard .45 round That's a fairly easy decision, no?
Atleast it's a start and MIGHT serve as a deterrent. Lets hope they never find out. Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
What I was getting it is that if the idea of banning something is to prevent a tragedy that can be caused by that something then we should start banning the somethings that kill way more people than AR's. Everyone is all for banning AR's to prevent another elementary school tragedy but if you were to take all of the children that were killed as a result of improper use of alcohol and have that happen in one day would everyone be ready to ban alcohol?
Now you are just being stubborn because you see my point has some validity. Okay, the room has 50 zombies....and the runner is fast. We both know the correct answers.
Here's a pretend game: Imagine all AR's have disappeared. They have been banned and collected and all are gone. Now some mentally disturbed person gets two semi auto pistols and multiple magazines for them. The go to an elementary school and kill a lot of children and adults because: they can shoot 18 times before reloading, they can reload really fast using magazines and the people at the school are defenseless. Are we okay with them banning semi auto pistols now?
I'm not saying the AR isn't lethal. I guess my point was if we are talking about how lethal a weapon is there is more to consider than just how many rounds it holds. If I'm in a close quarters scenario I defintely want my shotgun. It is the definition of lethal at close range and not prone to jamming, same with my pistol. 15 rounds of 00 buck in a 2 3/4" contains 144 projectiles. Start slinging that lead down a crowded hallway and what's gonna happen? I understand your point Fletch I just thinlk the topic isn't so cut and dry. In my "what if" scenario above I'm picking the .223 without hesitation because a load of buckshot at that range is likely to remove your leg and the .45 won't be much better.
I get your point. There's a line somewhere, but I don't know where that line is. Do I need a 20 round mag? No, not really. But I also didn't need a car that would go 120 mph when I was 16. Banning mags seems as silly to me as the govenor chip that was in my V6 'Stang. Stopped me at 111. Why not 80? and why did the more powerful V8 not have a govenor? Why do we 'need cars that wil do 0-60 in under 5 seconds? Because we can. See my point?
Alcohol was not specifically designed to kill people. Apparently a lot of poeple would rather preserve their right to keep AR's, even if there was a chance banning them could save children's (or anyones) lives. Assault rifles and high capacity magazines were designed for one very specific purpose, to be the most efficient firearms to kill people. Human beings....
Absolutely, and I respect it. And I agree that there should be a line in the sand somewhere. Where???
If all semi-autos disappeared, banned and collected and gone.....would it save lives? If so, should we consider that as an appropriate line in the sand?
I understand alcohol wasn't designed to kill people but it still kills many, many more people than AR's do. If the idea is to prevent needless death by banning something shouldn't we start with banning something that causes the most needless death? Alcohol is no more needed for daily life than an AR with a 30 round mag.
Banning all guns would even more save lives. Should we consider that as an appropriate line in the sand? If I were to draw a line in the sand it would not be banning guns. It may consist of requirements that make getting them a lot harder. Perhaps a 90 day waiting period for AR's and a signed release so your health care professionals can disclose mental health information. You get the idea.
I've been hesitant to jump in on this, because I'm trying to give myself time to reflect and think from both sides. I certainly have an immediate knee jerk, emotional response to what's possibly coming, but I also have to think about it from all perspectives. Maybe a question is a better way to show how I feel. Bruce, summed it up well when he said, Obviously some of you may or may not subscribe to the "slippery slope" theory, but is there not logic in this statement? Fletch, you are concerned about the lethality of the weapon being is sole intended purpose (I get that...not pointing fingers). However, aren't semi-auto pistols and shotguns meant and built solely based on their ability to fire a significant amount of rounds in a quick and efficient manner (yes, it's a bit of an apples-oranges comparison with regard to the shotgun)? I don't believe you want to ban all guns, or even semi-auto handguns, but, I suppose the question then becomes HOW do you (or our government I should say) justify or define the difference between weapons when your basis for judgement is on lethality alone? It's not even that I disagree with the idea that AR's are built for rapid fire and lethal efficiency, it's just I don't understand how we (or I should say our government) will define the differences. Sure the suppressors, the stocks, the mag capacity, etc., that has been done before was one way. While nothing more came of the 1994 law beyond that limitations of certain assault rifles and their accessories, what will be the next knee-jerk response to a mass killing using something other than those weapons affected by the most likely inevitable ban? I'm just ranting I suppose.
Sounds like compromise and a line in the sand. The line may be a moving target, but a line none-the-less. I would guess we will see something come out of this mess. It will get heated for sure. I do appreciate the civil banter we have had on this topic. It is a tough and very polarizing topic to be sure. There is no fix-all to be sure. To answer your earlier question, you can ban SOME alcohol, like cheap beer. But, leave my Scotch alone.
Does it matter than these type guns are only used in 2-8% of gun crimes? Or is the body count the most significant factor?
It's a good rant filled with a lot of tough quesitons that there really are no answers to. That's why this is going to be a tough road to travel. Somewhere there will be some compromise, of that I am pretty sure. Perhaps education and regulation will be all that is needed. Maybe a full-blown ban and seizure. I would guess it will fall somewhere in between. Good post.
I think the potential for high body count is what gets some attention. Right or wrong, it does indeed drive emotions and maybe rightly so.
The best solutions always come from smart compromise. That is why our government has ceased to work, there is no longer any compromise, let alone smart compromise.
EverClear is alcohol that is banned, they also have banned energy drinks with alcohol in some states. Really good banter here to make us think.
