Teen gunman kills 5 inside home in New Mexico

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

  • 5

    SimondB

    Meanwhile....................................

    **Thousands rally against stricter gun control in U.S.

    By WILL WEISSERT

    World Jan. 20, 2013 **-

  • -4

    Noliving

    Ya I'm willing to bet this teenage boy and the victims are all related and I'm also willing to bet the gun belonged to the man or the father of the children that were murdered..

  • 2

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    Before jumping to conclusions, how about waiting for some facts to be released by the investigators.

  • 10

    Outta here

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa,

    Here are some conclusions that can be drawn. Fact 5 people are dead due to being shot, fact guns were involved, fact there where several guns in the house including semi auto military style rifle......

    I don't think many other conclusions need to be drawn. At the end of the day the teen used guns that where in the house to kill those in the house. Guess its not the guns fault though they just did what they are designed to do right?

  • -4

    Alphaape

    I don't think many other conclusions need to be drawn. At the end of the day the teen used guns that where in the house to kill those in the house. Guess its not the guns fault though they just did what they are designed to do right?

    During the first 16 days of January, 26 people have been killed by guns in Chicago. Yet the media seems to ignore this fact. The majority of these deaths come from guns that were used by those who could not legally own a gun due to past criminal records. I don't know all of the facts in the NM but I would venture to say that this youth had some sort of emotional problems to kill 5 people who are probably related to him. I want to see what type of medications he was on and the family dynamic before I jump the gun and say that guns are bad, since if he was off his meds, he would have used anything available to kill.

    Even though not all of the evidence is in, it is sad to say that a first look at this would have something to do with a youht off their meds. The past few gun tragedies have been fitting that pattern, of someone who is off their meds and going postal.

  • 5

    Outta here

    Alphaape,

    You may be partly correct about the mess etc. but the issue and the reoccurring issue with all these shooting is the tool used to commit the act. The gun. If a mentally unstable person has access to a gun things will turn bad, if they don't have access to a gun they will still potentially turn out bad but no where near as bad simple as that.

  • 7

    Jimizo

    @Alpha America averages about 30 deaths a day from gunfire ( more than the yearly total of some European countries ). Reporting every gun-related death just isn't practical. Only the spectacularly evil is newsworthy these days.

  • -8

    Noliving

    America averages about 30 deaths a day from gunfire

    Vast majority of which are suicides.

    Well according to several sources such as the dailymail the suspect is the son of the pastor, now the question is where did the guns come from, I say they belonged to the pastor.

    if they don't have access to a gun they will still potentially turn out bad but no where near as bad simple as that.

    In an incident such as this most likely not, how many times have we read stories on here of a Japanese person killing their entire family using nothing more than a blunt object or knife. Seeing as the perp is the son of one of the victims it is fair to say they trusted him and as such he had very easy access to them. All he would have had to do is just grab a knife and waited till they slept and then cut their jugular veins.

  • 9

    Outta here

    No living,

    Now l realise that you are vehemently pro fun and will try to turn every comment against gun ownership around but seriously come on.... According to the FBI there was n excess of 14000 murders in the US and 67% of them involved a gun. That means in excess of 9000 people killed by guns, or on average 25 per day. So that must mean the other 5 per day are suicides according to you right? Unless you are disputing your own FBI figures....

    And yes people can be killed with knives or other weapons, but even you must admit guns just make it so much easier...

  • -8

    Noliving

    According to the FBI there was n excess of 14000 murders in the US and 67% of them involved a gun. That means in excess of 9000 people killed by guns, or on average 25 per day. So that must mean the other 5 per day are suicides according to you right? Unless you are disputing your own FBI figures....

    No I just wasn't doing the math. Whenever someone quotes those figures they are usually using the combined homicide and suicide number. There was just over 8500 gun homicides, not 9000. Also that figure includes what is considered justified homicide as well as those killed by law enforcement. So if we use that figure of 8500/365 we get just over 23.28 homicides (including justified homicides and those killed by law enforcement) each day not the 30 each day.

    but even you must admit guns just make it so much easier...

    When have I not admitted that? With that being said though when it comes to this incident specifically chances are the death count would not have been less if he was using a knife and went for their jugular vein if they were asleep.

  • 6

    Outta here

    Noliving

    No I just wasn't doing the math. Whenever someone quotes those figures they are usually using the combined homicide and suicide number. There was just over 8500 gun homicides, not 9000.

    Sorry but what is 14000 divided by 67%? That would be 9380 not sure how you get 8500. And given that the actual figure was 67.5% and the number of murders was in excess of 14000 then the numbers are higher again...

    Also that figure includes what is considered justified homicide as well as those killed by law enforcement. So if we use that figure of 8500/365 we get just over 23.28 homicides (including justified homicides and those killed by law enforcement) each day not the 30 each day.

    These figures are the number of "murders" in the US. So lm thinking that law enforcement deaths are not included some how.... Sheet you will really do anything to drop the figures now won't you... Just accept facts. In terms of murders in the US you rate higher than many third rate countries....

  • 0

    DudeDeuce

    Here we go again, more gun debates on here. I bet this thread will have over 200 responses mostly by the 2 above me and 2 or 3 others that will join in.

  • 3

    slumdog

    Now l realise that you are vehemently pro fun

    Now, that I would understand. It's being vehemently pro gun that I have trouble understanding.

  • -2

    Noliving

    Sorry but what is 14000 divided by 67%? That would be 9380 not sure how you get 8500. And given that the actual figure was 67.5% and the number of murders was in excess of 14000 then the numbers are higher again...

    Sigh....

    12,664 was the grand total homicides, there was 8,583 deaths with a firearm.

    http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

    These figures are the number of "murders" in the US. So lm thinking that law enforcement deaths are not included some how.... Sheet you will really do anything to drop the figures now won't you... Just accept facts. In terms of murders in the US you rate higher than many third rate countries....

    Well maybe I'm wrong but the FBI does have a section that is called justified homicide and that includes those by private citizens and law enforcement. OK it is higher.......Seeing as its going down that is really all that matters. This isn't a rate race.

  • 0

    Outta here

    Slumdog,

    Good pickup... Oops was meant to be pro gun not pro fun..... Stupid auto correct. Stupid dyslexic brain too.

  • 5

    taj

    I'm not anti-gun, nor am I anti-restriction. I believe there's middle ground that makes sense.

    ALL guns in the home should be kept out of the reach of the kids. Locked, with ammo locked under a separate key.

    If you can't keep your guns safe from your own kids, you shouldn't keep be keeping them in your home.

  • 3

    TorafusuTorasan

    @DudeDeuce "more gun debates" for the four or five people who speak up on JT.

    Yeah, it's messed up how this story of a kid slaughtering his entire family with parent-purchased weapons still provides any material for multiple angles of debate. You'd think there would be some shared agreement on how to tackle this kind of problem already. Did Newtown register? Columbine? Hello? Get ready for a bunch of hoopla about kids' mental health, as if it is possible to suddenly make every American teenager mentally stable. Why parents keep adding guns to the mix is beyond me.

  • 2

    smithinjapan

    AlphaApe: "During the first 16 days of January, 26 people have been killed by guns in Chicago. Yet the media seems to ignore this fact."

    There are a LOT of gun accidents and deaths in the US that occur daily and go unreported, in part because it is so common place it takes at least a few deaths to make the news (and they have to be shot more than once), or else it has to be about a kid shot by his paranoid father or mother who thought someone was breaking in. Also on that gun-related accidents, suicides, and homocides are so very common that it would be impossible to report it all. It also doesn't mention the moron who took his loaded shotgun to a gun show, which of course went off, that ended up injuring three.

    Anyway, no surprise here, though I'm sure a few gun nutters have already posted comments saying, "They could have done the same thing with another weapon so long as they had the intent", as though if could have killed the five with multiple blows from a Cupie mayonnaise plastic bottle, or a water noodle.

    They'll never learn.

  • -1

    Daijoboots

    So this would be this week's mass shooting deaths in the great U.S.? It's only Monday though, maybe a case with more casualties will happen before the end of the week.

    Thank god Japan and other places don't insist on the right to arm themselves to their teeth.

  • -2

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    I fully support the right of the anti-gun lobbyists to disarm themselves. That's their choice. They are also welcome to hang a "gun-free zone" placard on their front door, if they so wish. What I do NOT support is the collectivist insistence on infringing the freedom of others, especially rights that pre-date the federal government.

    The evil acts of some are not cause to curtail the freedoms of the whole.

  • 0

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    " Tuntematon Sotilas at Jan. 21, 2013 - 09:42AM JST

    If gun control is so effective, can anyone explain why so many people get murdered by guns in Chicago?"

    From the other thread, but a pertinent question.

  • 0

    slumdog

    If gun control is so effective, can anyone explain why so many people get murdered by guns in Chicago?

    Perhaps, the fact that state lines are at least as porous to guns as a sieve has something to do with it?

  • -4

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    " Perhaps, the fact that state lines are at least as porous to guns as a sieve has something to do with it?"

    By George, slumdog, what a grande idea! Clamp down on those ridiculously porous state lines with security checkpoints at all of them! Do it for the safety of cinema-goers, church-goers, students of all ages, everyone! Yes, show us your papers! Brilliant!

  • 4

    Outta here

    Herve NmnL'Eisa,

    You want to protect the safety of cinema goers, church goers, students etc then the best thing you can do is really quite simple, get rid of guns. It has worked elsewhere. Now l know you Americans struggle a bit with common sense and you gun worship peers would feel like your gods have been taken away but it might actually save a few lives. After all when was the last revolution in the US...

    Ah America the land of the loony....

  • 3

    lucabrasi

    What I do NOT support is the collectivist insistence on infringing the freedom of others, especially rights that pre-date the federal government.

    Got to agree with this, Herve. I'd stand up for the right of anybody to own any weapon, as long as it predates the federal government. Some of those flintlocks look pretty spiffy....

  • 2

    SuperLib

    Police: Gun used to kill 3 in Ky. bought same day

    HAZARD, Ky.—A gunman enraged by a domestic dispute bought a gun and fatally shot his former girlfriend, her uncle and her cousin in the parking lot of a small southeastern Kentucky college, police said Wednesday.

    http://www.twincities.com/allheadlines/ci_22384227/2-killed-shooting-ky-college-parking-lot

    Had he been playing video games or something?

  • 2

    SuperLib

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa: If gun control is so effective, can anyone explain why so many people get murdered by guns in Chicago?"

    Wild guess here, but I'm thinking it might have something to do with easy access to guns since so many of them are available without any kind of responsibility attached to them, which is just how you like it? Nah. That's crazy anti-freedom talk.

    Another guess here.....perhaps the high murder rate came first and then gun ban came second? Or was Chicago a relatively peaceful place until they banned guns and suddenly it became a murder capital? And can we think of any other places on the globe where they don't allow guns and the death rate by guns is extremely low? Tough question, I know.

    High number of guns = high rate of death by guns. I still haven't met a gun supporter who can counter that statistic.

  • -3

    sailwind

    I'd stand up for the right of anybody to own any weapon, as long as it predates the federal government. Some of those flintlocks look pretty spiffy....

    You might want to reconsider your position. I would assume that you would also stand-up very loudly for overall right of freedom of speech and the freedom of information that doesn't predate the federal government at all. Such as the ability to debate and discuss on an internet forum and the vast volume of information at your fingertips in the public domain that would be totally inconceivable to anything predating the federal government.

    The same technology and free public information that if you google "how to make a gun" gets you 2,770,000,000 results (0.20 seconds). And it's not about how to make a flintlock.

  • 2

    TorafusuTorasan

    @sailwind "not about how to make a flintlock"

    There must also be a lot of results on how to make pruno and shanks for prison inmates.

    Who goes to the trouble of making his own gun except a serious hobbyist, or someone so paranoid about the government that they want no records of their gun?

    The lesson this latest shooting leads to is: use the money spent to buy or make guns on feeding or treating your kids properly so that one of them doesn't go off the deep end. Did the minister in New Mexico have his priorities straight in amassing an arsenal at home? I wouldn't be surprised if the kids needed that money more than the gun dealers.

  • 2

    Kabukilover

    If gun control is so effective, can anyone explain why so many people get murdered by guns in Chicago?"

    That's a no brainer. It's because Chicago, like an other city in the US, is porous and you can get guns from outside the city and bring them in. You need at least effective state-wide gun control to stem the tide of gun violence. That is wihy states with the toughest gun control laws have some of the lower rates of gun deaths and why are large percentage of states with lax gun laws have the highest number of gun deaths--and most of them are "red" states.

    But back to the main news. As thousands of gun nuts protest against gun control we have another mass murder by an assailant using ever so available guns. I know that much of the debate about this horror will center around whether the guy is mentally ill or not, which I think is a red herring. The fact is there is no sub-class of "the mentally ill." Mental illness can strike anyone. One can be temporarily "mentally ill." One can be "mentally ill" for a few moments--just enough time to pick up a gun and use it.

    The very presence of guns can make someone momentarily "mentally ill."

    I am cheerfully writing this from Japan, where guns are very strictly controlled, gun related deaths are rate and gun scum like the NRA simply do not exist. And I am from a state with pretty strict gun laws.

  • -2

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    " That is wihy states with the toughest gun control laws have some of the lower rates of gun deaths and why are large percentage of states with lax gun laws have the highest number of gun deaths--and most of them are "red" states."

    Again, MORE false info being spewed. Read John Lott's book. The actual statistics contradict that presuppostion so widely distributed by the regressive left.

  • -2

    Herve Nmn L'Eisa

    " I am cheerfully writing this from Japan…"

    Quite literally Apples vs Oranges(mikan in fact) for comparison. Gun ownership was never very widespread before the ban, and one can obtain one nefariously at relatively low cost, as the yaks do. The average Taro is so passively sheepish that it's no wonder the birthrate is so low. But, even then there are the whole-family slaughters oft reported. No, there aren't shooting sprees, and that is good.

  • 0

    lucabrasi

    The average Taro probably is more sheeplike than the average Joe, but, statistically, he's also considerably less dead.

  • -2

    sailwind

    Who goes to the trouble of making his own gun except a serious hobbyist, or someone so paranoid about the government that they want no records of their gun?

    Not really the point that I am making. In order to have a 100 percent totally effective gun ban you not only have to ban already manufactured guns you also have to ban or tightly restrict information on how to make the weapons in the first place. For that to happen your going to have eventually start further restricting free speech and information that is now widely available public information.

    As far as who goes to trouble to make their own gun, much more than you think actually and it will just get more popular as the Government piles on more and more ineffective regulations on the law-abiding and they go for alternatives like this to get around the ever increasing cumbersome rules.

    People line up to legally make untraceable guns

    Dmitri Harris runs the Ares Armor store, along with his buddies, some Marine Corps infantry veterans. The shop is busy because more people are finding out about the chance to build your own gun without having to go through any registration or government signups of any kind.

    It is possible because of the Gun Control Act of 1968. It reads, "an unlicensed individual may make a firearm," but also says it has to be for personal use and cannot be for sale or distribution.

    Harris warns that not everyone can build their own gun. Non U.S. citizens, felons or anyone disqualified from gun ownership cannot participate.

    Team 10 purchased a piece of aluminum and watched as it was turned into a receiver for an AR-15. It can take four or five hours to do this, depending on how busy the shop is. Inside that machine shop is a computer-controlled milling machine that cuts out the aluminum.

    What Team 10 ended up with was a receiver that can have parts added to it, such as the trigger, the barrel, the stock and the magazine. Team 10 fired the AR-15 at a nearby range when the receiver was finished and it worked just fine.

    http://www.10news.com/news/investigations/people-line-up-to-legally-make-untraceable-guns

  • 0

    Kabukilover

    Excuse me but John Lott's book has been discredited.

  • 4

    missray

    What gun supporters would like us to believe is that it isn't the gun that kills, but crazy lunatics with no way out. Which just means that while people in other industrial nations actually care about living at peace with others, Americans only care about who has more guns to protect themselves from other fellow Americans with guns. Sad, but true.

  • 0

    Kabukilover

    That's right, missray. The irony is that we are having this debate with the gunners in Japan where not many people can have guns, and then only shotguns or air rifles. Regular gunpowder rifles were outlawed in 1971 but exempted those already owning rifles. Survivors cannot inherit these rifles and must turn them in to the police right after the owner has died.

  • 1

    Kabukilover

    A word on apples and oranges. We are in fact talking about apples and apples (or oranges and oranges if you like). The Japanese are not a particularly tranquil people and there are a lot of "Taros" who would love to own guns. You can buy model guns that are amazingly realistic. I'm really not sure if they would be allowed in the U.S. There are also gun magazines for gun fans with absolutely beautiful covers featuring guns these gun fans can never own. If gun laws were as loose in Japan as they are in the States I am sure the gun death statistics would be as grim here as they are in the US. Gun are difficult to have legally here and difficult to get illegally. Yes, the yaks have guns. Fortunately they mostly use them on each other.

  • 0

    FightingViking

    Sorry, but I just don't understand this fascination to own a gun, let alone an assault rifle ! We are not (yet) at war with any country, why would any "normal" citizen want to own anything more than a catapult ? Or an air-gun at the most ? And then only to "attack" a paper/wood/metal target ! "Accidents" are far too frequent (for example : the Japanese young man who didn't understand the word "freeze"...) not to mention the "nut cases" who let it all loose on innocent school children or cinema audiences... Just like the epileptic drivers in Japan - it doesn't "show" until it's too late...

  • 0

    SuperLib

    I caught a radio show last night on my way home and the host was talking about how countries like North Korea and Iran would love for the US to ban guns because they are itching to invade. The more I hear stuff like this the more they sound like some guy defending religion.

  • 0

    Hide Suzuki

    @lucabrasi

    "I'd stand up for the right of anybody to own any weapon,"

    This is something I can never understand. Why would any average Joe need military style automatic assault rifles ?

  • 0

    Xeno23

    As information about this sad event rolls in, it looks like another case of a tragic end to a dysfunctional family situation. The real point of this story is not what happened at the end, but what failed to prevent the escalation. This is a far more complex and difficult issue than controlling the means of implementing a tragic outcome. It is also a wider concern than for just the USA.

    It seems that as a race, human beings, we're seeing increased dysfunction in group dynamics from families to bigger families, like nations. It could be argued that the collapse of this NM family into violence is a micro-scale reflection of the collapse of bigger groups into violence. We should ask ourselves why this is happening, and what we should do about it.

  • 0

    Kabukilover

    Not topic. At this time we do not know what caused this horror to happen. What we do know is that there were guns readily available for the deed to be done.

  • -2

    Noliving

    This is something I can never understand. Why would any average Joe need military style automatic assault rifles ?

    That is easy, they are the most versatile of all firearms. They are basically a jack of all trades master of none gun. Show me a firearm that is as versatile as a semi-automatic rifle.

  • 0

    Outta here

    Noliving

    That is easy, they are the most versatile of all firearms. They are basically a jack of all trades master of none gun. Show me a firearm that is as versatile as a semi-automatic rifle.

    You are actually right there noliving if your invading another nation, or planning a mass killing spree nothing is as versatile as a semi auto rifle. If your are hunting then it's a waste or you are a terrible shot..... Which again begs the question, why does the average joe need an semi auto assault rifle!

  • -4

    Noliving

    If your are hunting then it's a waste or you are a terrible shot..... Which again begs the question, why does the average joe need an semi auto assault rifle!

    How is it a waste and what does using a semi-automatic have anything to do with being a terrible shot? Semi-automatics are needed for their versatility, they are great for hunting, target shooting, self defense and forming a militia.

    I love how every one thinks that if you go hunting with a semi-automatic that it means you are just going to rapidly squeeze the trigger or that your going to fire dozens of rounds and if you're not doing that then you are using a semi-automatic incorrectly. If you can have a firearm that is very effective for target shooting, hunting and self defense why not have that gun instead of having one gun for each?

    Face it Semi-Automatics are the most versatile firearm there is.

  • 1

    Outta here

    Noliving,

    How is it a waste and what does using a semi-automatic have anything to do with being a terrible shot?

    Really you need me to explain. It means you obviously miss on your first shot so you need to shoot again rapidly. Hence you're a terrible shot.

    Semi-automatics are needed for their versatility, they are great for hunting, target shooting, self defense and forming a militia.

    Yep and this one sentence pretty much sums up the mentality of the US gun lobby......

    I love how every one thinks that if you go hunting with a semi-automatic that it means you are just going to rapidly squeeze the trigger or that your going to fire dozens of rounds and if you're not doing that then you are using a semi-automatic incorrectly.

    Yep because that is normally what happens..... And it's normally because these "hunters" couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from 20 meters so they need a rifle that can pump out the rounds in a hope of hitting something.

    If you can have a firearm that is very effective for target shooting, hunting and self defense why not have that gun instead of having one gun for each?

    Again l ask, why do you need a semi auto for hunting. A decent shot and meter only needs a single shot, hunter in other countries can do it but you can't? Hmmm target shooting, yeah definitely need a semi auto for that! NOT. Self defence, don't make me laugh. A rifle for self defence is a joke....

  • -2

    Noliving

    Really you need me to explain. It means you obviously miss on your first shot so you need to shoot again rapidly. Hence you're a terrible shot.

    Right........

    Yep because that is normally what happens..... And it's normally because these "hunters" couldn't hit the broadside of a barn from 20 meters so they need a rifle that can pump out the rounds in a hope of hitting something.

    Then how come the hunters using semi-automatics don't do that? Do you have any idea how fast you can shoot pump action or lever action or bolt action firearms?

    Again l ask, why do you need a semi auto for hunting. A decent shot and meter only needs a single shot, hunter in other countries can do it but you can't? Hmmm target shooting, yeah definitely need a semi auto for that! NOT. Self defence, don't make me laugh. A rifle for self defence is a joke....

    Semi-autos only fire one shot each time you squeeze the trigger. Do you think pump action are needed for hunting? How about bolt action? Are they needed for hunting? How about lever action? You can fire lever action and pump action fire arms at a cyclic rate of 300 rounds per minute. Canadian and New Zealand hunters for example use semi-automatics to go hunting with. In fact the most popular hunting rifle in Canada is a semi-automatic rifle it is the Remington 740. AR-15s are quickly becoming one of the most popular hunting rifles in New Zealand. If you honestly think most countries restrict hunting firearms to being single shots only you are mistaken.

    Why would a rifle for self defense be a joke? Especially a carbine?

    For example real world test shows that soft point .223 rounds, used in the AR-15, penetrate fewer wallboards than 9mm HP, .45 ACP FMJ, or 12 gauge buckshot:

    http://230grain.com/showthread.php?65428-Ammunition-Drywall-Penetration-Analysis-Test-%28Adpat

    Specifically, Winchester Ranger 55-grain .223 Softpoint penetrated less than Federal 230-grain .45 ACP FMJ, Speer 115-grain 9mm Gold Dot JHP, or Winchester 12-Gauge 00 Buckshot. A lot of people make the mistake thinking that rifles over penetrate. Rifles are a much more accurate firearm than a handgun and have more stopping power, you would be surprised at how inaccurate people are with handguns at close ranges, and much more precise firearm than a shotgun meaning you don't have to worry about half of 00 buck shot or bird shot hitting the attacker and the other half flying else where.

    What type of firearm do you need for target shooting?

    Like I said semi-automatic rifles are the most versatile firearm there is, they are a jack of all trades master of nothing. So the reason why people need them is for their versatility. They are effective for everything a firearm is used for: Target shooting, Hunting, Self Defense, Militia. Show me a firearm that is more versatile.

  • 0

    Outta here

    Noliving,

    Then how come the hunters using semi-automatics don't do that? Do you have any idea how fast you can shoot pump action or lever action or bolt action firearms?

    Sure do, do you?

    Semi-autos only fire one shot each time you squeeze the trigger. Do you think pump action are needed for hunting? How about bolt action? Are they needed for hunting? How about lever action?

    Bolt action is fine for hunting. As is lever action. Semi auto's! Bit of over kill there.

    You can fire lever action and pump action fire arms at a cyclic rate of 300 rounds per minute.

    Rubbish! You started this nonsense last time. The "potential" rate is 300 rpm. However as they only hold a small magazine 6-20 rounds then the most you will fire is that many rounds per minute. Then you have to stop and reload. Also anyone who has shot a gun of any description will tell you that those rates of fire a. Are not sustainable, b. are not accurate and c. Are a waste of bullets.

    Canadian and New Zealand hunters for example use semi-automatics to go hunting with. In fact the most popular hunting rifle in Canada is a semi-automatic rifle it is the Remington 740. AR-15s are quickly becoming one of the most popular hunting rifles in New Zealand. If you honestly think most countries restrict hunting firearms to being single shots only you are mistaken.

    You pick two countries with loose gun laws. How about Australia, UK, or Japan. People manage to hunt just fine with bolt action rifles. I know that for a fact because I am one of them, and yes l have shot semi autos as well.

    For example real world test shows that soft point .223 rounds, used in the AR-15, penetrate fewer wallboards than 9mm HP, .45 ACP FMJ, or 12 gauge buckshot:

    Again rubbish. Given the effective range of a rifle compared to a pistol or shot gun. Yes at close range the rifle will penetrate less due to the break down of the bullet. The pistol fires at a slower fps rate so the bullet will not breakup as much. But over longer ranges rifles are deadlier. Also consider this in self defence a rifle would stop someone out to several hundred meters is that really self defence? A pistol is for close in action where a rifle would be too unwieldy. But this was pointed outgo you the other day.

    No let me say this before you go any further. Gun ownership is not a right it should not be a right it is and should be a privilege. People should only own guns if they can prove they have a need for them. Hunting, stock management, occupation, or member of a shooting club. Self defence, protection, and just for the sake of it are not legitimate excuses. Like I said there is no place in a society for handguns as they can be concealed, or for semi auto rifles. There is no legitimate need for them and l say this as a gun owner and user. The rules in my country in the wake of the port Arthur massacre banned semi auto weapons and this was the best move ever as that type of weapon should not be in the hands of civilians.

  • -1

    Noliving

    Sure do, do you?

    Absolutely.

    Bolt action is fine for hunting. As is lever action. Semi auto's! Bit of over kill there.

    No not really. What would be over kill would be a Gatling gun chambered to shot shot gun slugs. That would be over kill.

    Rubbish! You started this nonsense last time. The "potential" rate is 300 rpm. However as they only hold a small magazine 6-20 rounds then the most you will fire is that many rounds per minute. Then you have to stop and reload. Also anyone who has shot a gun of any description will tell you that those rates of fire a. Are not sustainable, b. are not accurate and c. Are a waste of bullets.

    The argument against semi-automatics is how fast they can fire between shots not how many shots you can effectively get off in one minute. The truth of the matter is that you can fire pump action and lever action firearms at basically a rate of 5 rounds per second and if you use speed loaders you can really up the effective fire rate on them. Then why is it over kill to have a semi-automatic with a 6-20 around magazine when using a lever action with a 6-20 round magazine that you can empty in 2 seconds is acceptable? (notice how I didn't say it was detachable magazine on the semi-automatic)

    You pick two countries with loose gun laws. How about Australia, UK, or Japan. People manage to hunt just fine with bolt action rifles. I know that for a fact because I am one of them, and yes l have shot semi autos as well.

    Ya and people hunt just fine with semi-automatics. What is wrong with having a preference? Did you know that New Zealand has a lower firearm crime rate per capita than Australia and they allow military style semi-automatic rifles, they also have not had a mass shooting either since Port Arthur.

    Also consider this in self defence a rifle would stop someone out to several hundred meters is that really self defence? A pistol is for close in action where a rifle would be too unwieldy. But this was pointed outgo you the other day.

    Generally anything that increases the accuracy is going to improve its effective range and yes it can be self defense because the person attacking you might be several hundred meters out if they are also using a rifle as well. If you fire a 120 grain 9mm bullet at an angle of 45 degrees it can go about 2300 meters before falling. Absolutely a rifle can be considered self defense especially if the round penetrates less than a pistol or a shotgun through a wall. Ya it was pointed out to you as well that a carbine is also a rifle the other day. Like I said what is wrong with using a rifle carbine for self defense? If a rifle/carbine is too unwieldy for self defense then I guess people who recommend shotguns are also wrong? You can use rifle (carbines) and shotguns just fine in close action. Military and SWAT show that you can use rifles/carbines and shotguns just fine in close action especially in houses.

  • 0

    Outta here

    No living,

    Enoughs enough, it is clear that there is no point discussing this issue with you as you cannot see the trees for the forest when it comes to guns, and gun crime. I will say the NRA would be proud of you, this discussion has made me realise one thing l am so glad to live in the country l do. A country with sensible laws around guns and gun control and not a culture that sees guns as a right rather than a privilege. I pity you and your fellow Americans as l can see your doomed to repeat these sad events over and over as long as people like you have a voice and politicians are to scared to stand up to the likes of you. I guess people just have to realise that when it comes to America gun crime and massacres are to be expected as much as any 3rd world nation.

    I pity you and the children of America that will inherit this madness.

  • 0

    Hide Suzuki

    Thanks Noliving for confirming that NRA supporters have no logical thinking, just argue for the sake of argument. Funny how the rest of the world shakes our heads every time we hear nonsense from the NRA.

    I see you write a long sentence at every gun related article. Too bad you are not changing anyone's mind LOL

  • 0

    Noliving

    I see you write a long sentence at every gun related article. Too bad you are not changing anyone's mind LOL

    Why would I need to change anyone's mind?

  • 0

    Outta here

    And while some on here argue that guns are not bad and that they shouldn't ban them there are reports of another school shooting in the US today. Unbelievable..........

  • 0

    Noliving

    It appears to be a targeted shooting. So far the good new is that no one has been killed.

  • 0

    Noliving

    It is a gang shooting that occurred today at the Lone Star College.

  • 0

    Outta here

    Noliving

    It is a gang shooting that occurred today at the Lone Star College.

    Oh well that makes it ok then I guess!!!! Hmmmmm

  • 0

    Noliving

    Oh well that makes it ok then I guess!!!! Hmmmmm

    Where did I say that or even imply that?

Login to leave a comment

OR

More in World

View all

View all