Should there just be a "Mass shooting in the US" sticky thread?

Luxman

#TRE45ON
How an AR-15 Works

Efficient murder machine.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
All semi automatic fire arms work one of two ways. The way an AR cycles it's rounds is no different that a standard 1911 model .45ACP handgun. It's known as gas impingement, or direct blow back. The other way, is long stroke gas piston, which is rarely used on anything other then rifles. Such as the M1 Garand, or M14.

All modern firearms are efficient. It's called technical advancements, it happens to cars, machines, computers, everything. It could also be called progress, although the AR's basic operation hasn't changed much since the 60's or there abouts. In fact the M1A2 .50 caliber machinegun, hasn't changed since it's development in the early 1900's, and the 1911 .45 hasn't really changed since 1910. John Browning designed both, plus gave us the over under, pump, and semi auto shotguns, lever action rifles, several hand guns, and automatic weapons. He holds more firearms patents then anyone else. Eugene Stoner created and developed the M16, or military version of the AR.
 

Luxman

#TRE45ON
Why don't mass shooters strangle or throw knives at their victims instead of shooting them?
 

gmase

Nattering Nabob of Negativism
Because it is easier and less personal. The efficiency is a bonus.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Why don't mass shooters strangle or throw knives at their victims instead of shooting them?
One just did in Canada. He stabbed mote then died, which was 10, I think. I didn't post it, because #1, it wasn't a shooting. And #2, I thought it seemed a little fucked up, to whore those dead people, because I advocate for firearms. A few years ago in Japan, 7 were killed in a mass stabbing,

Gmase is correct. Choking and bludgeoning, and stabbing are very personal ways to kill. That's why serial killers usually strangle, or bludgeon.

But my only point was, there is no magical difference between how ANY semi automatic firearm works, The guy at Virg.Tech several years ago used Glock pistols. I think most mass shooters us AR's, because they're the basic standard military issue for half the world, certainly NATO countries, because we sell them the guns, and because they can be purchased for a far more reasonable price then many other semi automatic rifles. Unless your a dumb ass like the last guy that had a Daniel Defense rifle. Those are high end, and usually used by competition shooters.
 
Why don't mass shooters strangle or throw knives at their victims instead of shooting them?
Looking at some of these shooters, I would say they would have got the shit kicked out of them by their victims if they tried killing them with anything other than a firearm. Which speaks to their cowardice and makes them all the more deplorable.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
Looking at some of these shooters, I would say they would have got the shit kicked out of them by their victims if they tried killing them with anything other than a firearm. Which speaks to their cowardice and makes them all the more deplorable.
This is a valid point. I would also venture to guess, they were bullied. In my high school days, if you had a bully, you faced that bully like a man. If you kicked his ass, it was done, and maybe you even became friends, if you lost, you kept standing up to him, until he realized he wasn't going to keep doing it, without things escalating. Kids to day are expected to tattle tale, which does no good, and makes it worse, or you're supposed to try and reason with an idiot, that basically was bullied, and needs to get his ass kicked. We live in an unrealistic, pacifist country, that will not accept that certain things just will never change, and need to be dealt with in an old school fashion. All that pent up rage at a bully needs to go somewhere, and it needs to be vented, and a therapists couch isn't the way to do that. I would bet some of those shootings would not have occurred, if the shooter just had the courage, and encouragement to punch the fucker in his eye. I've always been interested in guns, even as a preteen, but I never thought about running amok. Why, because when I got bullied, or fucked with, it got settled after school, in the field next to the church, near the school, where all the kids went, when there was a fight. I won some, I lost some, but I fixed it myself, with out any whining or running to mommy or the school. It's called becoming a man, and learning the way the world works, but this new pussified society we've become just refuses to see it.
 
If there's a good part to the story, it's that "patrons of the bar fought and subdued the attacker before officers arrived". Hats off to them. Even more so that the perp was still alive and doesn't seem to have life-threatening injuries when the police arrived - there must of been the temptation to make sure he didn't make it out of there alive.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
I agree. It would be hard to resist the thought of private justice. Hell, I give the credit for not even giving him a good working over, at least break his nose.
 
If I or my friends were shot, while the others had him on the ground, I would have been sticking the gun in his face, asking in a very, slow voice "Do you feel lucky punk? Well, do ya'?"

Given he had a gun, you could have probably argued proportional use of force doctrine to get in a few extra kicks "to ensure he was subdued". Highly doubt any jury would be sympathetic towards a mass murderer.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
If I or my friends were shot, while the others had him on the ground, I would have been sticking the gun in his face, asking in a very, slow voice "Do you feel lucky punk? Well, do ya'?"

Given he had a gun, you could have probably argued proportional use of force doctrine to get in a few extra kicks "to ensure he was subdued". Highly doubt any jury would be sympathetic towards a mass murderer.
I give the guys that stopped him a lot of credit. It's not easy to to summon the courage to do what these guys did. They saved a lot of lives, they're hero's in my book. and should be credited as such.

I don't think a jury would be sympathetic, but you have to remember, the judge can deny certain info, and evidence, so you never know how that shit could turn out, especially if he was already under control, and subdues. However, a smashed bottle across his eyes might be easily explained.
 
I give the guys that stopped him a lot of credit. It's not easy to to summon the courage to do what these guys did. They saved a lot of lives, they're hero's in my book. and should be credited as such.

I don't think a jury would be sympathetic, but you have to remember, the judge can deny certain info, and evidence, so you never know how that shit could turn out, especially if he was already under control, and subdues. However, a smashed bottle across his eyes might be easily explained.
I agree with everything you said here. And again, mad props to the guys who intervened - they are far braver and better people than I am.

I'm just suggesting that realistically, once they had him on the ground and subdued, and then people just started kicking the literal shit out of him, I don't think the police will find anyone willing to testify against those who got those extra shots in against the asshole. And that even if that made it into court and in front of a jury, there wouldn't be a conviction. If it was just a judge, then maybe - but even then, you'd need those witnesses to testify, and even if subpoenaed, all you would likely get out of them is "I didn't see it" or "I don't remember".

In violent crimes where the perp is caught in the commission of the crime, i.e. there is no doubt to their guilt, I have extreme malice towards the guilty and have no problem with any extra-judicial punishment they get. They waived their right to be treated as humans.
 

Mr. Daystar

In a bell tower, watching you through cross hairs.
I agree with everything you said here. And again, mad props to the guys who intervened - they are far braver and better people than I am.

I'm just suggesting that realistically, once they had him on the ground and subdued, and then people just started kicking the literal shit out of him, I don't think the police will find anyone willing to testify against those who got those extra shots in against the asshole. And that even if that made it into court and in front of a jury, there wouldn't be a conviction. If it was just a judge, then maybe - but even then, you'd need those witnesses to testify, and even if subpoenaed, all you would likely get out of them is "I didn't see it" or "I don't remember".

In violent crimes where the perp is caught in the commission of the crime, i.e. there is no doubt to their guilt, I have extreme malice towards the guilty and have no problem with any extra-judicial punishment they get. They waived their right to be treated as humans.
I see your point, I just think in todays world, it's really hard to know who and what is watching. If that bar had security footage, it would look real shady, if they refused to turn it over, to save the the guys who beat them, they could be looking at all kinds of grief. It's just almost impossible, to get away with shit like that in the new world. But I am for a little private justice, don't get me wrong.

That's some article. A lot going on. This guy was a giant red flag. I wonder if he was confused about his own sexuality, and couldn't handle it. More then one serial killer has fallen into that category, You just know there's going to be a whole bunch of weirdness coming out as this moves forward.
 
Top