Impact of handgun types on gun assault outcomes

I guess another exception to the big "rule"

Another exception to the "rule"

Amadou Diallo shooting in NY, 41 shots fired by 4 officers killed him.

 Another New York City shooting – Sean Bell died after 50 gun shots fired by 3 officers killed him (New York City agreed in July 2010 to pay more than $7 million to settle a federal lawsuit filed by the family and two friends of Mr. Bell.)

Boy for "exceptions" there sure are a lot of these...

14,

Cool down on the attacking here..

There are more examples to the contrary than you can list which support your opinion, so instead of looking to fight how about you state your disagreement and move on.

You are using examples of police shooting suspects multiple times to prove what exactly?

Is there evidence that these suspects lived beyond multiple shots AND were still a danger?

That the idea that someone can define "enough" magazine capacity is preposterous. 

Rick,

If you look at the massacres across the country over the past decade or so and examine each perpetrator and their weapon of choice, how many of them choice to use pump action shotguns, bolt action rifles, 5,6,7 shot revolvers etc...

You cannot tell me that if they (assailants) had had a single action firearm that the outcomes would have been as deadly..

If the VT guy Cho didn't have a Walther p22 and a Glock 19 holding anywhere between 15-19 shots per clip..  he would not have been able to kill as many people as he did..

Point is mass shootings are done with semi-automatic firearms..

The states aren't that incomplete.. It is obvious what the weapon of choice is for most people who are trying to harm large groups of people... Is it not..?

You suggested in post #16 that the example provided was the exception to some rule. What is the rule and how do we get from here to there?

Several posts in this thread..when someone expresses an opinion, you attack the person rather than expressing disagreement. It isnt tough to see what I am talking about, it is done in several posts in this very thread and is a huge part of your posting history here.

I know you get mad and take things personally, but there is no need to be confrontational when someone disagrees or points out a contrary opinion or belief to yours.

Wallstreet,

The argument is highly subjective as you can tell from this thread..so why would he need to be an expert to have an opinion about what is excessive?

There has to be a way for you to communicate a difference of opinion than to be as aggressive.

We all know your position on this subject, its OK for someone else to think differently and share that opinion without having to prove the position with sources that you wont belittle or attack about even further.

Wall please post one example of an attack in this thread that you refer to. For the life of me I cannot find a personal attack like you say.

Oh wait. I found one. Any reason why you chose to overlook this wall?

Are there any 'attacks' from 14 that are far worse than this?

....... But if they accuse you in numerous threads for numerous weeks of being a guilty accomplice in the Sandy Hook murders , and every other murder that happens, that behavior is not excessive, argumentative, or a belittling attack.

In fact wall will attempt to say that you are at fault for misinterpreting it.

Then the poster of the attacks corrects Wall, and says that wall is incorrect in his sentiment, and that he actually is making those accusations and points.  

LoL.

 

I am not a guy that cries to the mods when my feelings get hurt, or when I think someone is an alias, and let me preface this by saying I like and respect you wall, but if you are going to allow Don's attacks, you can't get too harsh when things get heated, and when similar attacks are levied on others. 

Nature of the beast bud. 

So Wallstreet, I would encourage you to wonder what (perhaps yours) the response would be if the topic were different, say health care.

A ban on Semi autos completely eviscerates the 2nd amendment.

If a law like this were passed it would need to be an Amendment.  I would also say that law enforcement and domestic military groups would have to also adhere, and if military did not, then there should also be exemptions for militias.

If someone really wanted to take 15 minutes to mow down people in a mass shooting, a bolt action rifle used from the right position would be much, much more effective than any semi-automatic handgun.

Not at all..

I positively would not do what you did in the above posts..

If you had an opinion and some grounds to share the opinion outside of INTENTIONALLY being combative (which happens all too often here) I dont care if you agree with me, unless you pull belittling things as you did the other day.

The distinction is how you handle yourself, not that you carry a different opinion.

I am not giving an example of a left vs right, which seems to be a HUGE problem for you and rick and a few others..that if I dislike confrontation then it is some party play..not the case at all.

Now here is another example of a difference of opinion and you being unable to deal with that..in the very post above #45, where you take great offense at someone having a different opinion, you pull the same tired routine you always do..

Its quite boring seeing you try to toss anger and offensive attacking on such a subjective topic.

The Mad minute-- was a pre-WW1 term used by British Army riflemen  Many riflemen could average 30+ shots into a target ..while the record, set in 1914 by Sergeant Instructor Alfred Snoxall, was 38 hits into a 12" target at 300 yards ..... ( bolt-action rifle)

During the Battle of Mons, there were numerous German accounts of coming up against what they believed was machine gun fire when in fact it was squads of riflemen firing at this rate.

Sergeant Snoxall was documented to record 37 or 38 hits into a 12" target in a minute with his No1 MkIII* SMLE .303 bolt action rifle..