HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » When a Glock semi-automat...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:10 PM

When a Glock semi-automatic pistol can shoot 33 rounds without reloading, killing dozens of people

in a couple minutes, who -- except for gun apologists -- cares whether the murder weapon was a rifle or a pistol?

The point is that it really doesn't matter which efficiently deadly gun the shooter used; we make it way too easy for extremely lethal weapons to get into the hands of disturbed people.

40 replies, 2447 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 40 replies Author Time Post
Reply When a Glock semi-automatic pistol can shoot 33 rounds without reloading, killing dozens of people (Original post)
pnwmom Dec 2012 OP
MotherPetrie Dec 2012 #1
spanone Dec 2012 #2
KoKo Dec 2012 #3
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #13
pnwmom Dec 2012 #15
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #17
KoKo Dec 2012 #18
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #22
KoKo Dec 2012 #24
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #25
Andy823 Dec 2012 #4
ItsTheMediaStupid Dec 2012 #5
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #19
Skittles Dec 2012 #8
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #14
Honeycombe8 Dec 2012 #6
aquart Dec 2012 #7
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #9
cthulu2016 Dec 2012 #11
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #12
pnwmom Dec 2012 #16
KoKo Dec 2012 #20
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #23
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #26
rDigital Dec 2012 #30
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #31
zappaman Dec 2012 #39
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #32
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #33
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #34
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #35
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #36
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #37
LineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineLineNew Reply .
TPaine7 Dec 2012 #38
nadinbrzezinski Dec 2012 #27
rDigital Dec 2012 #28
NoMoreWarNow Dec 2012 #10
RomneyLies Dec 2012 #21
rDigital Dec 2012 #29
Odin2005 Dec 2012 #40

Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:14 PM

1. The NRA cares - the more people guns kill, the more illogical paranoia they can whip up

 

and they more dumbasses they can get to campaign against their own best interests, i.e. against gun control, to increase the NRA's power.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:24 PM

2. sounds like an assault pistol to me

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:27 PM

3. Do you think Obama will address this once it dies down in the Media?

I would hope he would.

What do YOU think would be a Compromise Solution...if you were an "Adviser for the People" to the Obama Administration on how to move forward on what happened?

What happened Today and Yesterday and Beyond and What is going on with our WARS Overseas?

What would you suggest?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #3)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:36 PM

13. Federal bans on extended clips

Would be a good start.

Federal background checks that at least meet California (I would like tougher ones)

All gun laws have to be federal, and stop the hodgepodge of state laws...

Close the gun show loophole.

That be a start.

Do I expect it? Unicorns have a better chance of farting in the forest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:06 PM

15. I agree. How many bullets could a gun hold in the days the Constitution was written?

I'm sure they never anticipated the killing capacity of the guns we allow today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #15)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:13 PM

17. It's not just that.

The gun owners of the day were expected to drill every month with the local militia. Granted, drill rarely included actual shooting. Lead balls were damn expensive. (So were the guns themselves). In fact, some of it included plenty of beer and food...

Our modern court, has in my view, eviscerated the well regulated with Heller.

In the modern day this drilling requirement describes the State Guard to a damn T.

We need to go back to well regulated...that means armed forces and police. Private citizens should be licensed. And as I said in a few other places, all civilian guns, once is practical, must receive smart gun technology, to literally match them to shooter.

Will this happen? Unicorns have a better chance of farting in the forest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #13)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:45 PM

18. The "hodgepodge" of state laws would be a good first effort...

also...later ..why do we need reapeating assault weapons..(rifles, guns) to kill deer, coyotes or protect our homes from an intruder.

I wish more attention could be paid to this. Taking out two classrooms of little kids in a way that their remains need time to be identified seems to be beyond the pale of what the 2nd Amendment put in the protection of "Right to Have Arms." (but, then I realize it also concerned Militias) ...but, they weren't thinking about Repeating Assault Weapons with belts of ammunition clips so that it could be rapidfire for mass killings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #18)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:50 PM

22. My solution to that

You want a bushmaster? Sure...make the selector function to two settings, safe and single shot.

Sure, looks means, but you should be able to bring that deer down with one shot.

As is, the M1-Garand, though semi auto, has a five round capacity, which is also a better round.

Some of our hunters like the macho looking guns...so they want them? Sure, lousy round, single shot.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #22)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:11 AM

24. Good Points...but, can we hope to get to a society that doesn't want to

look so MACHO in their own cowardly behavior that they need an Assault Weapon to take down a deer or shoot a rabbit?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to KoKo (Reply #24)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:13 AM

25. In single shot it is nowhere close to assault, well except in looks

And they are already using bushmasters and the rest in the series to hunt rabbits and squirrels. A .22 would work.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:29 PM

4. I agree, and I am a gun owner

We have to get tougher on stopping this insanity. I was for the assault weapon ban, and think it should be the law again. I also think that the sale of large magazines and clips should be stopped. I have never understood the need to be able to shoot 33 rounds from a hand gun, or rifle, without reloading unless it's for the military during war time.
There are to many unstable people out there who should never be able to have access such weapons.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Andy823 (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:33 PM

5. The only reasons to have a magazine that big are mass murder and combat

The only legit reason is combat

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ItsTheMediaStupid (Reply #5)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:46 PM

19. Actually the only reason is target shooting.

Extended mags on pistols are unwieldy and prone to jamming. To suggest using them in combat is laughable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Andy823 (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:52 PM

8. you sir are a gun owner and not a gun nut

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Andy823 (Reply #4)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:37 PM

14. And the military does not use extra large capacity magazines.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:35 PM

6. That sort of weapon has no business being in the public or owned by a private citizen. It has ONE

purpose: killing people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Honeycombe8 (Reply #6)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 09:42 PM

7. Yes.

And I would be fine jailing anyone who would sell it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:17 PM

9. You care, that's who

 

Not that it's a big deal or anything, but you are the one who made an issue about the type of weapon it was. You even started a thread about it.


pnwmom (41,427 posts)
41. A parent with a pistol would have been no match against this guy with his

assault weapon. The parent would be George Zimmerman, not Superman.

Statistically, allowing guns around schools would result in more accidental shootings than it would prevent crimes like today's.


pnwmom (41,427 posts)
92. Reports are that there was a .223 caliber rifle seized.
And that many rounds of gunshots were heard. It was most likely a rifle with a magazine.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-14/connecticut-shooting-leaves-27-dead-including-pupils-ap.html

The AP reported that the attacker in Connecticut is a 20- year-old man. A law-enforcement official in Washington said that one gun used in the attacks is a .223-caliber rifle, the news service reported. The official spoke to AP on condition of anonymity because the source was not authorized to speak on the record about the developing investigation.


http://johnston.patch.com/articles/27-dead-in-connecticut-school-shooting-aa42c099

The alleged gunman, whom reports have identified as 24-year-old Ryan Lanza, a former Quinnipiac University student, was armed with four guns and a high-powered assault rifle.


pnwmom (41,427 posts)
117. The "Sig Sauer" has been called the "Rolls Royce of assault rifles."

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-gun-did-the-sandy-hook-shooter-use-2012-12

The shooter was using one Sig Sauer and one Glock, according to CNN. Glock doesn't make an assault style rifle, but Sig Sauer is the Rolls Royce of assault rifle producers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:23 PM

11. That's a fair cop.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #11)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:32 PM

12. Thanks for the civility.

 

It stands out today, LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #9)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:07 PM

16. That was before I learned there WAS such a thing as a semi-automatic pistol

that could fire 33 shots before needing reloading.

Thanks for pointing me in that direction.

I still don't think that arming the parents and teachers with their own semi-automatic pistols is the solution. In fact, that teacher was the owner of the gun that killed her. It didn't work out for her, obviously.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #16)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:47 PM

20. Agree...I didn't know that either. What possible reason would one need to own one of these

or even those repeating Assault Rifles unless one wanted to create mass killings of animal, people life?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:07 AM

23. It's certainly not a 100% thing, but if it were MY child, I would have preferred that a teacher or

 

other responsible adult at that school be armed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #23)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:42 AM

26. Because we all know the cross fire would not hit anybody

But the bad guy!!!!



I love that macho fantasy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #26)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:04 AM

30. Where do you derive your expertise on firearms and defense? nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rDigital (Reply #30)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:16 AM

31. Among other things from having been in real shootouts between the cartels

And the army... You get really good at cover and all that real fast. My job was to take care of the wounded as a medic. And I had one in particular, very close call.


And we own weapons too...

And some in my family are now retired cops.

So my knowledge comes from this silliness called real life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #31)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:02 PM

39. 'Among other things from having been in real shootouts between the cartels"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #26)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:59 AM

32. Macho fantasy?!!

 

First of all, I think macho is a masculine term and the people who were running to gunfire were women; I've read that the principal was killed when she tried to stop him and that all of the adults killed were women.

Second, this wasn't a fantasy at all, it was real life. She went beyond the call of duty to charge a shooting lunatic--and you are happy that she had to do so unarmed, because it's possible that someone might have gotten hit by crossfire?!!

But even if it was a guy, it was well beyond macho. And it was not done to aggrandize anyone's ego; it was done out of horrifying necessity. If you would put down that cartoon lens, you might be able to look past the silly stereotypes to reality.

Let's apply this type of logic to another subject.

Doctor: If we do the operation, we have a better chance of stopping your cancer than by any other means.

You: Because we all know that no one ever dies or is injured in surgery!


A gun would have given the heroic principal and other women in that school a fighting chance against that maniac. It is the single best way to stop an active shooter, as a general rule. While I am sure that there are many who would want these women to have to engage in hand-to-rifle combat in defense of a child they loved, I am not among them. And of course there are associated risks, there are risks with everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #32)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 09:56 AM

33. I am sorry, but guns every where will not make things

Better.

It is a fantasy that more guns are a solution.

It is also an NRA and gun bunny talking point.

We are no longer tolerant of this idiocy.

And using the death of women who were protecting their kids from this man to push your guns every where is just the lowest of the low. We need responsible gun laws, not this, more gun guns for everyone! Oh happy joy!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #33)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:15 PM

34. I am sorry, but content free false and emotional language like

 

"guns every where" and "fantasy" and "NRA" and "gun bunny" and "talking point" and "idiocy" and "lowest of the low" and "guns everywhere" and "responsible gun laws" and "more gun guns for everyone" and "Oh happy joy" aren't going to convince anyone of anything who isn't emotionally caught up.

Substance free emotion like that gets you stupid and/or ineffective laws.

Your post 26 contained not one valid, rational point. When I pointed that out, you spouted more pat phrases and emotion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #34)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:21 PM

35. You repeat NRA talking points, divorced from reality

I will call you on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #35)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:35 PM

36. BS. I addressed exactly what you said. Unless the NRA has a psychic/prophet

 

on staff, they cannot possibly have an answer to the specific things you said.

I challenge you to find the NRA saying anything about how "macho" is masculine and all of the adult victims were women, or that the principal took this killer on barehanded.

I saw the NRA quoted in a story saying that they had no comment until the facts are all clear; they won't be talking about this incident until the dust is fully settled.

Nothing I said came from the NRA. You know as well as I do that if you were in the principal's position, you would rather have a handgun than a fist. You might not care enough for the children to want them better defended, but if YOU had to face that nut, you would want a weapon. That's a fact unless you are an extreme pacifist or a very unusual person.

Now you can try to dismiss that reality by calling it an "NRA talking point" until you turn blue in the face. But anyone not caught up in emotion will see through your tactic. You'll even see through it if you ever calm down.

Reality is not an NRA talking point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #36)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:40 PM

37. You repeated NRA talking points

And you don't even realize it, you delicate flower you. Stop pretending.

Guns everywhere and concealed carry *is* an NRA talking point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nadinbrzezinski (Reply #37)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 02:58 PM

38. .

 

"NRA talking points"... "delicate flower"..."Guns everywhere"...



Concealed carry is a legal policy—it's no more a "talking point" that the Brady background check system is a "talking point."

Now "guns everywhere" is a talking point. And a lie. The NRA doesn't want guns everywhere. They don't want them in the homes of convicted felons. And I am sure that, like me, they don't want them in prison cells or mental hospital rooms.

See how I actually answered what you said??? I even went past the REAL "talking points" to find the shred of an actual point there and address it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #16)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:46 AM

27. That's an extended mag

In reality, standard magazines are not that large.

The usual types will defend the magazines so they don't have to reload as often at the range.

I am impressed, they unbalance the gun as well.

Having a standard mag, 10-12 rounds depending on state, few 15 (why we need federal standards) should be good enough for the range or plinking cans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TPaine7 (Reply #9)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 12:59 AM

28. Always confront ambiguity. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 10:22 PM

10. definitely that's one thing we can work to change

 

easier than other gun control, for sure

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Fri Dec 14, 2012, 11:50 PM

21. If we implemented a $10/grain tax on gunpowder

 

Those 33 rounds would cost $1,353 in JUST federal gun powder taxes, minimum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RomneyLies (Reply #21)

Sat Dec 15, 2012, 01:03 AM

29. Good luck with that. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Original post)

Sun Dec 16, 2012, 03:56 PM

40. Semiautomatic pistols should be banned, IMO.

If you are defending yourself one or two shots should be enough to shoot the bastard dead, 33 rounds is just massive overkill, literally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread