Thunder.Gerbil wrote:After he fired over 400 rounds, killed 26 people, wounded 20 more, and was exiting the building to leave the scene was when he was wounded by the instructor.
He later died of a self inflicted head shot wound after fleeing in a vehicle and traveling a number of miles distance at high speed. He even had time to make a few cellphone calls before crashing his vehicle at high speed, at which point, he committed suicide.
I'm all for responsible ownership, but I'd hardly call that "stopped a shooter"...
I know, he was hit in the leg and chest with the magical .223 round and didn't die. Shocking, I tell you. If the media and gun grabbers are to be believed, he should have been dead after the first wound to his leg, let alone the chest wound. I have read in the media, and told by many of the ill-informed that the .223 round is some super high powered round that is designed to shread organs on contact. The truth, is that it is medium powered at best, and was actually designed to wound. Hence 400 rounds fired to kill 26.
So, do you really believe that outlawing AR-15s would have stopped this massacre or any of the other shootings where they were used? Anyone with even the slightest amount of firearm experience would know that in the close quarters of a church or classroom, a shotgun and a hundgun or two could produce far more carnage. Don't forget that the Virginia Tech murderer killed 32 and his weapon of choice was a typical handgun. The Navy Yard muderer killed 13 with a typical hunting shotgun, and he didn't have the advantage of a large group of people crowded into a small space, like at a church or classroom. In March, 2014, 29 people where killed and 130 wounded in a mass knife attack at a Chinese train station. On July 14, 2016, 84 people where killed and 120 injured in France by a murderer using a truck as his weapon. In 1995, 168 people where killed and 680 injured by a murder who choose fertilizer as his weapon.
So, since I have shown that an AR-15, nor even a gun, is needed to commit mass murder, why all the screams about outlawing this particular rifle? Could it be that once this rifle is outlawed, the same arguements can be used to outlaw all other semi-auto rifles? That the same arguement could be used to then outlaw all semi-auto hanguns, and eventually all revolvers, and then all pump actions, and then all lever actions, and then all bolt actions, etc. etc.?
Believe me. Many in power, and their pawns the media and gun grabbers. won't be happy until the US Citizen is nothing more then a helpless, defenseless, unarmed slave. Any who thinks this whole thing has to do with just one model of rifle is blind.
David (dpnewell)