Nah dude firing 2 pistols at once would be anything but accurate. I don't think any trained shooters would even do that, they'd just fire one pistol properly, with both hands.
I suppose, yeah. Still good do some serious damage, easy to fire, accurate, easy to reload, easy to carry multiple firearms on you when out of ammo. I guess that's more what I'm going for.
I still think that seems unrealisitic and something you would only see if the school shooting was taking place in the matrix or another cheap action movie.
in a packed classroom/hallway/subway station platform/mall/wherever else, a shooter with two weapons (the previously mentioned pistols) has a higher rate of fire and can fire in multiple directions. accuracy, well, they're pistols. but better than a flintlock. i could see more damage coming from two pistols than from a long gun, especially if used in conjunction with high capacity magazines, because at that point, its just point and click. the same shooter in the same crowded place, with a rifle, is holding a weapon that is more easily disarmed. my .02
You can commit a mass murder with even a knife... Making guns illegal would only lead to making a majority of gun owners criminals, leaving law abiding citizens completely vulnerable
i live in kern county, pretty close to the small town in which it happened i reallly couldn't believe it'd happen here ha
Yeah Im not saying its easy but its not even close to hard enough to be from the matrix.... youre just holding two pistols and pulling both triggers, someone who has shot a pistol more than a couple times would be able to do it fairly easily. And also theres the fact that you could time your clips and always have a weapon with a round loaded, psychos commonly get taken down while reloading some huge ass assault rifle. I mean either way its fucked up, I just think dual wielding is actually more effective than assault rifles in close quarters, unless you care about who is being shot which is not a common theme among mass murderers. I dunno it just seems silly to take away one class of gun used for long range shooting because a few insane people abused them in horrific ways. Does anyone really think that would even remotely slow down a killer from getting a weapon or limit in any way his ability to inflict harm? To me it feels like a solution to make everyone feel good about themselves for "doing some good" but I seriously think people need to think about whether or not it'll have any effect whatsoever, other than limiting the rights of the citizens even further while still remaining loosely truthful to those rights...
All this is is another nail in the coffin for the US public. 1 more step towards pacification. @byrnd: have you ever shot pistols extensively? it's extremely hard to get a good grouping at 25 yards using just one gun and both hands let alone two. I mean maybe if you are only 10 feet away it would work but if you want to hit people any farther than that dual wielding is completely useless and a waste of precious ammo.
Trust me man, it'd take you a lot longer to reload 2 pistols than one AR-15, seeing as both your hands are occupied with the pistols, so you'd have to put one down to reload the other, and then do the same thing for the second gun, as opposed to holding the rifle in one hand, removing the mag with the other and inserting the new one. I agree completely with the rest of your post.
We love school shootings. It's a problem that directly affects only a few people, and the rest of the country can gawk and be shocked and it's all very entertaining. Did you cry for the kids in Connecticut? Did you grieve? Probably not. But we all heard the body count on the news, and the story of the kills, and we all felt a perverse attraction to the tragedy.
its a good point that its spectacle for people. Meanwhile the deeper issues that effect everyone are swept under the rug
Honestly i think so many people are doing these shootings because now they are guaranteed national air time and discussion on every news network. These psychos all want recognition and we are just feeding them what they want by letting the media blow all these things into a huge deal just for ratings.
So to stop school shootings, we need to make guns harder to get? The kids, who are the ones committing the shootings, can't buy guns. They take them from their parents or acquire them by other means. People who want to kill, will kill. It's that simple. The best quote I can think of is: "You don't blame cars for drunk driving. So why blame guns for shootings?" I honestly have no 'plan', because I don't think there needs to be one. People die by the hands of criminals wielding firearms everday. Why hasn't there been stricter regulations already? The media is a fucking hooker that will do anything for ratings. You don't see any headlines "Gunman goes into school and is shot down before any fatalities." This shit makes me sick.
I agree, but I don't like the term "psycho" because it implies that they are a lost cause. Yes, there are psychological issues at the root of the issue here, but a lot of agony and isolation. They want to be heard. If you're interested in this, you should check out this article by a person like Adam Lanza: I Was Adam Lanza A quote: "When I was pondering shooting up my school, I rarely thought of doing it out of malice against the other students. The revenge factor would have been an added bonus, but really, what I wanted was for people to agonize over why I'd done it. Then, maybe, they'd see how badly they'd treated me. I'd be a monster, yes, but a monster with a message. I am convinced that most of those who commit these horrible acts want attention and/or sympathy, or at least acknowledgment. While the choice to pull the trigger lies with the shooter, the incentives to pull are created by society."
Sorry psycho wasn't the best term. I know psychosis well as i have bi polar with psychotic tendencies, Also yes i thought about shooting up my school for the same reasons as the guy in that quote. I don't think many of these mass murderers have much if any chance at rehabilitation and reintroduction to society. Even if they did survive they will spend the rest of their days in jail. Once they pull that trigger their life as a free human with rights is revoked.
I'm interested in what the rehabilitation for say, James Holmes (Aurora shootings), would be like. Most mass murderers kill themselves or are killed by police, so I doubt there's much precedent. Honestly, I would feel more comfortable letting a mass murderer out of jail after rehabilitation than I would letting out a killer who acted in multiple separate instances. Killing wasn't a habit for James Holmes.
Yeah thats exactally what im saying though, most recent high profile mass shootings have all been way less than 25 yards, and its been with crowds of people all localized in one small area or room. Thats why people are demonizing assault weapons, for their effectiveness at spraying high numbers of rounds in a short period of time, at least that seems to be the theme. Its just the hypocracy that makes me mad. Its also interesting that they are all rallying behind a series of recent and awful killings where assault weapons were used, and equally interesting that the circumstances around those events are fishy at best... I urge everyone to do their own research on the shootings, people are blowing them up into crazy conspiracies which I think is just jumping to conclusions with little evidence, but with each shooting it is quite clear that the official story is full of holes at best and we havent been told all of the truth - which is unsettling because these events may very well lead to everyones rights being restricted.