Nearly twenty dead at school shooting

[worstblogever]

Bringing more guns into schools? What could possibly go wrong?

Well, apart from this: Newly-hired Michigan elementary school guard leaves gun in school restroom

I'm sure all the parents of children at that school feel safer already.

I was thinking about a line of argument the other day... if the military can point out that nuclear disarmament is based on the idea that with fewer weapons out there, the less of a chance of them falling into the wrong hands... why does that same logic not apply to guns amongst the public?

[Royal]

Video Games: The New Cigarettes

[JCAll]

Video Games: The New Cigarettes

And of course Missouri has to have a hand in this.

[Vibranium]

http://www.examiner.com/article/roll...fit-sandy-hook

the rd league I am involved with is doing this today

should be fun

[dupersuper]

It were all staged by the librul medya.

Nothing is going to convince these yahoos they aren't Rambo.

Hopefully Rambo himself will for at least a couple of them...

http://www.gossipcop.com/sylvester-s...sault-weapons/

Don't patronize me. If you can't see terms like "weapons of war" used to describe civilian semiautomatic firearms for the fear mongering propoganda it is

That's fear mongering propaganda, but NRA craziness is what?

I have used a M1A, a far more dangerous millarty rifle for hunting deer

That hardly seems sporting...

A new clip. BUtht ath would make the weapon far less effective for self defense/

I suppose...if you were attacked by 7 or more people...

[mikekerrIII]

That doesn't have anything to do with my statement, and "far more dangerous" for a single buck at 100 yards, not far more dangerous for killing people. Otherwise the military would be packing hunting rifles. No, I've never been hunting. Do you think the guy that chooses which weapon the United States Military uses has ever been on a battlefield?

Far more dangerous for killing people, The USA uses it for a secondary sniper rifle , the USMC uses often for designated Marksmen, and the official standard long arm of the SEALS. If you read the history of the M-16 it weight and the weight of its ammo were the prime considerations along with the ease of training that came from it significantly less powerful round.

the Standard sniper rifles for the US military are slightly modified model 70 Winchesters and model 700 Remington, and those are extremely common hunting rifles

[dupont2005]

Far more dangerous for killing people, The USA uses it for a secondary sniper rifle , the USMC uses often for designated Marksmen, and the official standard long arm of the SEALS. If you read the history of the M-16 it weight and the weight of its ammo were the prime considerations along with the ease of training that came from it significantly less powerful round.

the Standard sniper rifles for the US military are slightly modified model 70 Winchesters and model 700 Remington, and those are extremely common hunting rifles

Sniper rifles aren't all that great for the battlefield though, are they? Aren't that great for an indoor massacre either. If it was, the military would not be issuing M16's to their troops. Different weapons have different areas where they excel. I already said your gun is better for dropping big game at a distance, or I guess an enemy in a kevlar helmet. A larger caliber means more kick, more time lining up between shots (The shooter was 100 lbs at best), means less rounds in the mag, heavier ammunition, heavier gun when loaded, and the rounds take up more mass, meaning fewer can be packed on you. There are countless reasons why the M16, or AR15 are better suited for an up close massacre. It's not as simple as "This gun shoots a bigger bullet, it's more dangerous!"

No, when your target is thirty kindergarteners with no body armor, all locked in a room, then being able to line up a shot rapidly with as little kick as possible and as many rounds in your mag as you can get is what's more dangerous.

[JaggedFel]

Sniper rifles aren't all that great for the battlefield though, are they? Aren't that great for an indoor massacre either. If it was, the military would not be issuing M16's to their troops. Different weapons have different areas where they excel. I already said your gun is better for dropping big game at a distance, or I guess an enemy in a kevlar helmet. A larger caliber means more kick, more time lining up between shots (The shooter was 100 lbs at best), means less rounds in the mag, heavier ammunition, heavier gun when loaded, and the rounds take up more mass, meaning fewer can be packed on you. There are countless reasons why the M16, or AR15 are better suited for an up close massacre. It's not as simple as "This gun shoots a bigger bullet, it's more dangerous!"

No, when your target is thirty kindergarteners with no body armor, all locked in a room, then being able to line up a shot rapidly with as little kick as possible and as many rounds in your mag as you can get is what's more dangerous.

Pretty much this. If the goal is room to room slaughter with a large number of targets. You are not taking your sniper rifle for your killing spree.

[mikekerrIII]

Pretty much this. If the goal is room to room slaughter with a large number of targets. You are not taking your sniper rifle for your killing spree.

The M-14 wich has the same relation ship to my M-1A as an M-16 has to an Ar-15 was the standard battle rifle of the US army for quite a while. With all the rate of fire of a Ar-15, similar magazine capacity and a bullet that is about twice as deadly.