Military-Grade, Assault Weapons

[AUDub 11,784]

State of the Market:

Just to let everyone know what's going on. I hate to make anyone be scared into buying anything. I don't like the fear mongering...They will continue to try and take away our rights. We must not give up or give in.

Man talk about talking out both sides of your mouth.

[aujeff11 6,243]

State of the Market:

Just to let everyone know what's going on. I hate to make anyone be scared into buying anything. I don't like the fear mongering...They will continue to try and take away our rights. We must not give up or give in.

Man talk about talking out both sides of your mouth.

To be fair he also said the fearmongering was coming. He runs a gun store, of course he was going to use the Orlando attacks to fatten his wallet.

"I don't like the fear mongering. This time it is coming."

[Bunkey 0]

Would you feel differently if your 21 year old child was unarmed, dancing with friends in a club and was shot 8 times in 2 seconds? And if you think she survives when she pulls out her pistol because she can carry, then you're wrong. Think people.

[quietfan 233]

I have no desire to repeal the 2nd Amendment. I am a fan of freedom and would not want to repeal any of the rights protected by our Constitution, only expand them. Thus, I would support amendments to explicitly put in writing freedoms that are now just implied under the Constitution (in the 1st and 14th Amendment and elsewhere) as interpreted by the courts--e.g., same-sex marriage, abortion choice, equal rights for women, government-sponsored public defenders for indigent defendants, etc.,--or to treat marijuana the same as alcohol.

But I also recognize that every individual liberty protected by the Constitution comes with limits or restrictions for the good of the general public. Freedom of speech does not give me the right to yell "fire" in a theater or to slander someone. Freedom of religion does not give me the right to practice polygamy or human sacrifice in this country. A 'free' press does not mean a libelous press. And we already accept the idea that my "right to bear arms" does not include keeping nukes, nerve gas, or weaponize anthrax in my basement (even if I consider myself a "collector").

So I do not see it as a Constitutional crisis or infringement on my liberty if we as a nation decided that assault-type weapons or high capacity magazines were threats to our society falling under the same restrictions as personal nukes or canisters of sarin. I see no Constitutional conflict.

[tgr4lfe 220]

Shooter had killing in his heart. Take the " AR " out of his hands, anyone believe doesn't carry out this attack?

He had a pistol too. He could have used a shotgun ... Probably a better weapon in that situation ... or used " what ever". A bomb vest? Point is, the rifle is NOT the GD issue!!!!!!!!!

This is it 1,000 times over, those hell bent on killing and causing damage will use whatever means necessary to do so. The breakdown is the mentality of these people, those who want to do this, you, I, government can't control that by taking away the ability to limit some type of "assault weapons", i.e. rifle. I'm quite surprised and am waiting for the suicide bomber style attack in a crowded _______, pick a spot, somewhere in the U.S. It's only a matter of time. This could have and should have been a moot point given that the FBI had talked to him at some point, if he went to Saudi Arabia after that then there should have been red flags and more done, or vice versa. There is a phenomenal amount of lack of communication b/t LE agencies, especially local to state to federal and then the lack of communication b/t federal agencies. If he applied for the AR15 purchase, why did ATF database have red flags on him b/c of the FBI interview of him? Why didn't his coworkers say/do more? Why are people not saying/doing more? We are in a country now of a LOT of sheep, especially the millennials, who are content with government doing everything. People need to be able to protect themselves. I guarantee, the club has a strict no weapons policy, and I'm sure the bouncers or guards aren't armed either, which equals a soft target. It's places like this that America needs to shore up and secure. YES, someone there with a firearm, could have potentially ended the onslaught of this radical islamic terrorist with a single, or 15 rounds themselves. That is absolutely and highly likely!! People need to stop being sheep. I'm not opposed to tightening the belt on gun sales and checks, but too much over reach is going to have the opposite affect and make things worse. As Strychnine said, a lot of states don't regulate private person to person sales, IN STATE, i.e. I can sell a firearm to another TN resident as long as they show they are TN residents. How is that going to be regulated? The thing is people have to know how to and be able to protect themselves. I used to be in LE, they can't be everywhere, most departments I know of here in TN are so busy its insane, mainly dealing with stupid people.

[AU-24 3,128]

" A hand gun, self-defense ... whatever, fine. But these military style weapons need to be banned."

Wrong. They don't.

Ok, so what's your suggestion to keep these out of the hands of any nut job who wants to walk into a crowded space and open fire?

So you are actually blaming the gun, not the killer?

[AURaptor 1,137]

The FBI can spend 24 hours and come to the conclusion this guy was a lone wolf, not acting in concert with any foreign organizations, but it spends 2 years investigating Hillary's private ( and hacked ) e-mail server, and still can't get around to announcing anything.

[AU-24 3,128]

3D printing technology will eventually allow the creating of all sorts of weapons including fully automatic weapons. The first 3D printed guns were crude, made of polymers and could only be fired a couple times. Metal can now be used in some 3D printing processes.

http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/evolution-3d-printing-technology-raises-security-concerns/

Obviously we need to immediately ban 3-D printers.

[AU-24 3,128]

Do u feel Radical Islam had anything to do with this?

Allot of damage can be done with a sick mind and a hunting rifle, or hand gun and explosives made with fertilizer.

If they are every bit as effective, why are mass shootings with AR15 variants so much more common?

Weapon of choice? No idea.

Driving a van loaded with explosives through the front door then detanating it would make you feel better?

Radical Islamic Extremist!

[AUDub 11,784]

Do u feel Radical Islam had anything to do with this?

Allot of damage can be done with a sick mind and a hunting rifle, or hand gun and explosives made with fertilizer.

If they are every bit as effective, why are mass shootings with AR15 variants so much more common?

Weapon of choice? No idea.

Driving a van loaded with explosives through the front door then detanating it would make you feel better?

Radical Islamic Extremist!

Ladies and gentlemen, an example of playing dumb. Or being dumb. Whatever.

[alexava 6,974]

I have seen enough batshitcrazy today to last me a while.

[AURaptor 1,137]

I have seen enough batshitcrazy today to last me a while.

Like how some blame Christians for Muslims killing gays?

[FormerlySec38Row34 56]

The AR-15 is THE most prevalent and most widely available sporting rifle in the U.S. It is NOT an assault rifle. There are other firearms out there that can do just as much damage that don't look like a military rifle. The FACT is that AR's have been used lately because they are there to buy. Every single gun store out there has a wide variety of AR's for sale. That's why they are the gun of choice now. If they weren't, you'd see these nut jobs using something else. You can find a WWII style M1 Carbine that can utilize a 30-round magazine. It can shoot just as fast as an AR-15, but uses a .30 caliber carbine cartridge, which is just as deadly up-close as an AR. If you are in favor of banning the AR, may I just point out that when they were "banned" in the Brady bill, there was no reduction in gun violence. There was also no increase when the ban sunset a few years ago. The problem is not the guns, it's the people with hatred and murder in their heart. To the point about everyday people not NEEDING a fully automatic rifle, my answer is this, maybe not right now, but this government is eroding our rights slowly but surely. If the next few elections, and this one in particular, go the wrong way and the new president puts a left-wing activist judge on the Supreme Court, The 2nd Amendment will be toast. You can expect the Heller decision to be reversed and your right to own a gun of any kind will be in jeopardy (see Great Britain). Shortly afterwards, you'll likely see hate-speech legislation that will criminalize any speech that is considered derogatory to any of the protected groups of people (gay, Muslim, Hispanic, take your pick). In case you weren't aware of it, the 2nd Amendment was not put in the constitution for self-defense purposes, or hunting. It is there to guarantee the right of the people to fight against a tyrannical federal government by whatever means necessary to keep the country free of oppression from said federal government.

Some of you will say BS on that, but we are witnessing the erosion of our civil liberties in a manner unlike any we've ever seen in our history. We have government entities stealing land out west (BLM) so Russians can get the Uranium on that land. We have the EPA and some state governments arresting farmers for collecting rainwater on their own property (Oregon). The IRS has run amok and is targeting conservative groups and individuals at the behest of the administration. Do you need more examples? There are more.

[AFTiger 282]

Ted Cruz explains:

https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=noy5f-y0uhY

[aujeff11 6,243]

AR 15's are assault rifles in that they can pop off 45 rounds per minute. Just because they don't have "select fire" function of a military assault rifle, that doesn't make it a weapon of the same power as a handgun. Why are the AR variants so common in mass shootings if others are just as effective in its semi automatic state? When I used the M4 in the military at semi-auto (which is basically the same as the AR,) the M4 was considered an assault rifle; therefore, when I use the AR( civilian version of M4) at semi auto, it's an assault rifle as well.

Also, the AR 15 can illegally be tinkered with to make the weapon shoot three round bursts or shoot full auto. I believe the terrorists in San Bernadino altered their rifles in this way. Make no mistake, AR 15's are assault rifles.

[FormerlySec38Row34 56]

AR 15's are assault rifles in that they can pop off 45 rounds per minute. Just because they don't have "select fire" function of a military assault rifle, that doesn't make it a weapon of the same power as a handgun. Why are the AR variants so common in mass shootings if others are just as effective in its semi automatic state? When I used the M4 in the military at semi-auto (which is basically the same as the AR,) the M4 was considered an assault rifle; therefore, when I use the AR( civilian version of M4) at semi auto, it's an assault rifle as well.

Also, the AR 15 can illegally be tinkered with to make the weapon shoot three round bursts or shoot full auto. I believe the terrorists in San Bernadino altered their rifles in this way. Make no mistake, AR 15's are assault rifles.

BS. Assault rifles have the capability of firing 10 times that rate. 45 rounds per minute is less than 1 round per second. That's painfully slow compared to full-auto. An assault rifle, by definition, has to have the select-fire or full-auto capability. Most times, when an AR is ILLEGALLY "tinkered with", it ends up emptying the magazine even if you release the trigger. Also, if an AR is fired rapid fire (not even full-auto) with an aluminum receiver and high-capacity mags, it will eventually jam, rendering it unusable. This has happened on more than one mass shooting. As I stated in another thread, the reason AR's are so common in mass shootings is that they are the most prevalent sporting rifle in the U.S.They are made by hundreds of manufacturers. Every single gun store in America has a wide variety of configurations and large numbers in stock. They are relatively inexpensive, readily accessorized and the ammo is very inexpensive (and readily available in quantity) compared to other calibers. You can get the same performance from a mini-fourteen, but they are very expensive by comparison.

[homersapien 12,172]

" A hand gun, self-defense ... whatever, fine. But these military style weapons need to be banned."

Wrong. They don't.

Ok, so what's your suggestion to keep these out of the hands of any nut job who wants to walk into a crowded space and open fire?

I don't think that there is a real answer to that question. No matter the weapon, all one needs is the willingness to trade one's life for another. If you ban assault rifles, people will be able to find them on the black market and those that undedstand and know how the black market work aren't the ones looking for collection pieces. Just like prohibition, some group will fill the vacuum left behind.

But why make it so easy?

This guy had a history.

[AUUSN 823]

He used a Sig Sauer MCX. Might want to check out the rate of fire.

A weapon ordered by Army Special Forces....so ya....assault rifle.

[homersapien 12,172]

AR 15's are assault rifles in that they can pop off 45 rounds per minute. Just because they don't have "select fire" function of a military assault rifle, that doesn't make it a weapon of the same power as a handgun. Why are the AR variants so common in mass shootings if others are just as effective in its semi automatic state? When I used the M4 in the military at semi-auto (which is basically the same as the AR,) the M4 was considered an assault rifle; therefore, when I use the AR( civilian version of M4) at semi auto, it's an assault rifle as well.

Also, the AR 15 can illegally be tinkered with to make the weapon shoot three round bursts or shoot full auto. I believe the terrorists in San Bernadino altered their rifles in this way. Make no mistake, AR 15's are assault rifles.

BS. Assault rifles have the capability of firing 10 times that rate. 45 rounds per minute is less than 1 round per second. That's painfully slow compared to full-auto. An assault rifle, by definition, has to have the select-fire or full-auto capability. Most times, when an AR is ILLEGALLY "tinkered with", it ends up emptying the magazine even if you release the trigger. Also, if an AR is fired rapid fire (not even full-auto) with an aluminum receiver and high-capacity mags, it will eventually jam, rendering it unusable. This has happened on more than one mass shooting. As I stated in another thread, the reason AR's are so common in mass shootings is that they are the most prevalent sporting rifle in the U.S.They are made by hundreds of manufacturers. Every single gun store in America has a wide variety of configurations and large numbers in stock. They are relatively inexpensive, readily accessorized and the ammo is very inexpensive (and readily available in quantity) compared to other calibers. You can get the same performance from a mini-fourteen, but they are very expensive by comparison.

Automatic fire capability is not the issue. It's the overall military design - particularly quick replacement, high capacity magazines. Even the Mini 14 is a military design, as evidenced by it's name.

[FormerlySec38Row34 56]

AR 15's are assault rifles in that they can pop off 45 rounds per minute. Just because they don't have "select fire" function of a military assault rifle, that doesn't make it a weapon of the same power as a handgun. Why are the AR variants so common in mass shootings if others are just as effective in its semi automatic state? When I used the M4 in the military at semi-auto (which is basically the same as the AR,) the M4 was considered an assault rifle; therefore, when I use the AR( civilian version of M4) at semi auto, it's an assault rifle as well.

Also, the AR 15 can illegally be tinkered with to make the weapon shoot three round bursts or shoot full auto. I believe the terrorists in San Bernadino altered their rifles in this way. Make no mistake, AR 15's are assault rifles.

BS. Assault rifles have the capability of firing 10 times that rate. 45 rounds per minute is less than 1 round per second. That's painfully slow compared to full-auto. An assault rifle, by definition, has to have the select-fire or full-auto capability. Most times, when an AR is ILLEGALLY "tinkered with", it ends up emptying the magazine even if you release the trigger. Also, if an AR is fired rapid fire (not even full-auto) with an aluminum receiver and high-capacity mags, it will eventually jam, rendering it unusable. This has happened on more than one mass shooting. As I stated in another thread, the reason AR's are so common in mass shootings is that they are the most prevalent sporting rifle in the U.S.They are made by hundreds of manufacturers. Every single gun store in America has a wide variety of configurations and large numbers in stock. They are relatively inexpensive, readily accessorized and the ammo is very inexpensive (and readily available in quantity) compared to other calibers. You can get the same performance from a mini-fourteen, but they are very expensive by comparison.

Automatic fire capability is not the issue. It's the overall military design - particularly quick replacement, high capacity magazines. Even the Mini 14 is a military design, as evidenced by it's name.

By that logic, an M1 carbine would be on your ban list as well. Any mag-fed rifle is easily reloaded, military-style or not. You could get a 10 or 20-round mag for Browning Auto, or any other semi-auto hunting rifle, so where do you draw the line? Do you ban every mag-fed semi-auto rifle?

[homersapien 12,172]

AR 15's are assault rifles in that they can pop off 45 rounds per minute. Just because they don't have "select fire" function of a military assault rifle, that doesn't make it a weapon of the same power as a handgun. Why are the AR variants so common in mass shootings if others are just as effective in its semi automatic state? When I used the M4 in the military at semi-auto (which is basically the same as the AR,) the M4 was considered an assault rifle; therefore, when I use the AR( civilian version of M4) at semi auto, it's an assault rifle as well.

Also, the AR 15 can illegally be tinkered with to make the weapon shoot three round bursts or shoot full auto. I believe the terrorists in San Bernadino altered their rifles in this way. Make no mistake, AR 15's are assault rifles.

BS. Assault rifles have the capability of firing 10 times that rate. 45 rounds per minute is less than 1 round per second. That's painfully slow compared to full-auto. An assault rifle, by definition, has to have the select-fire or full-auto capability. Most times, when an AR is ILLEGALLY "tinkered with", it ends up emptying the magazine even if you release the trigger. Also, if an AR is fired rapid fire (not even full-auto) with an aluminum receiver and high-capacity mags, it will eventually jam, rendering it unusable. This has happened on more than one mass shooting. As I stated in another thread, the reason AR's are so common in mass shootings is that they are the most prevalent sporting rifle in the U.S.They are made by hundreds of manufacturers. Every single gun store in America has a wide variety of configurations and large numbers in stock. They are relatively inexpensive, readily accessorized and the ammo is very inexpensive (and readily available in quantity) compared to other calibers. You can get the same performance from a mini-fourteen, but they are very expensive by comparison.

Automatic fire capability is not the issue. It's the overall military design - particularly quick replacement, high capacity magazines. Even the Mini 14 is a military design, as evidenced by it's name.

By that logic, an M1 carbine would be on your ban list as well. Any mag-fed rifle is easily reloaded, military-style or not. You could get a 10 or 20-round mag for Browning Auto, or any other semi-auto hunting rifle, so where do you draw the line? Do you ban every mag-fed semi-auto rifle?

Yep. I think you understand my logic.

And I own a Browning BAR in .270 Winchester. You can't convert it to a detachable mag without some gunsmithing and I would make such mods illegal.

I might even include the M-1 with it's stripper clip.

[aujeff11 6,243]

AR 15's are assault rifles in that they can pop off 45 rounds per minute. Just because they don't have "select fire" function of a military assault rifle, that doesn't make it a weapon of the same power as a handgun. Why are the AR variants so common in mass shootings if others are just as effective in its semi automatic state? When I used the M4 in the military at semi-auto (which is basically the same as the AR,) the M4 was considered an assault rifle; therefore, when I use the AR( civilian version of M4) at semi auto, it's an assault rifle as well.

Also, the AR 15 can illegally be tinkered with to make the weapon shoot three round bursts or shoot full auto. I believe the terrorists in San Bernadino altered their rifles in this way. Make no mistake, AR 15's are assault rifles.

BS. Assault rifles have the capability of firing 10 times that rate. 45 rounds per minute is less than 1 round per second. That's painfully slow compared to full-auto. An assault rifle, by definition, has to have the select-fire or full-auto capability. Most times, when an AR is ILLEGALLY "tinkered with", it ends up emptying the magazine even if you release the trigger. Also, if an AR is fired rapid fire (not even full-auto) with an aluminum receiver and high-capacity mags, it will eventually jam, rendering it unusable. This has happened on more than one mass shooting. As I stated in another thread, the reason AR's are so common in mass shootings is that they are the most prevalent sporting rifle in the U.S.They are made by hundreds of manufacturers. Every single gun store in America has a wide variety of configurations and large numbers in stock. They are relatively inexpensive, readily accessorized and the ammo is very inexpensive (and readily available in quantity) compared to other calibers. You can get the same performance from a mini-fourteen, but they are very expensive by comparison.

The Maximum effective rate of fire the M4 is 45 rounds per minute at semi automatic....Which is the same as the AR at Semiautomatic. Pay attention

At burst, the max auto is 90 rpm....Not even close to being 10 times over the rate of the AR 15. Again, I noted the AR doesnt have burst, even though some people choose to manipulate their weapons in order to increase the rate of fire.

At sustained, 12-15 rpm.

If you don't consider M4's assault rifles, then the debate is pointless. Because it is obvious the purpose of the weapons...

[FormerlySec38Row34 56]

AR 15's are assault rifles in that they can pop off 45 rounds per minute. Just because they don't have "select fire" function of a military assault rifle, that doesn't make it a weapon of the same power as a handgun. Why are the AR variants so common in mass shootings if others are just as effective in its semi automatic state? When I used the M4 in the military at semi-auto (which is basically the same as the AR,) the M4 was considered an assault rifle; therefore, when I use the AR( civilian version of M4) at semi auto, it's an assault rifle as well.

Also, the AR 15 can illegally be tinkered with to make the weapon shoot three round bursts or shoot full auto. I believe the terrorists in San Bernadino altered their rifles in this way. Make no mistake, AR 15's are assault rifles.

BS. Assault rifles have the capability of firing 10 times that rate. 45 rounds per minute is less than 1 round per second. That's painfully slow compared to full-auto. An assault rifle, by definition, has to have the select-fire or full-auto capability. Most times, when an AR is ILLEGALLY "tinkered with", it ends up emptying the magazine even if you release the trigger. Also, if an AR is fired rapid fire (not even full-auto) with an aluminum receiver and high-capacity mags, it will eventually jam, rendering it unusable. This has happened on more than one mass shooting. As I stated in another thread, the reason AR's are so common in mass shootings is that they are the most prevalent sporting rifle in the U.S.They are made by hundreds of manufacturers. Every single gun store in America has a wide variety of configurations and large numbers in stock. They are relatively inexpensive, readily accessorized and the ammo is very inexpensive (and readily available in quantity) compared to other calibers. You can get the same performance from a mini-fourteen, but they are very expensive by comparison.

The Maximum effective rate of fire the M4 is 45 rounds per minute at semi automatic....Which is the same as the AR at Semiautomatic. Pay attention

At burst, the max auto is 90 rpm....Not even close to being 10 times over the rate of the AR 15. Again, I noted the AR doesnt have burst, even though some people choose to manipulate their weapons in order to increase the rate of fire.

At sustained, 12-15 rpm.

If you don't consider M4's assault rifles, then the debate is pointless. Because it is obvious the purpose of the weapons...

The M4 is by definition, an assault rifle. The select-fire switch makes it so. If the M4 was semi-auto only, then it would not be. The M1 Garand was a semi-auto rifle. The M14 is an assault rifle. The M2 carbine is an assault rifle. They may have removed the full-auto in favor of the burst-fire, but that was more for sustained control and ammo conservation than for any other reason. That's why they have SAW's for covering and suppressing fire. But the AR has never been an assault rifle and never will be, if you use the military definition of an assault rifle.

[aujeff11 6,243]

AR 15's are assault rifles in that they can pop off 45 rounds per minute. Just because they don't have "select fire" function of a military assault rifle, that doesn't make it a weapon of the same power as a handgun. Why are the AR variants so common in mass shootings if others are just as effective in its semi automatic state? When I used the M4 in the military at semi-auto (which is basically the same as the AR,) the M4 was considered an assault rifle; therefore, when I use the AR( civilian version of M4) at semi auto, it's an assault rifle as well.

Also, the AR 15 can illegally be tinkered with to make the weapon shoot three round bursts or shoot full auto. I believe the terrorists in San Bernadino altered their rifles in this way. Make no mistake, AR 15's are assault rifles.

BS. Assault rifles have the capability of firing 10 times that rate. 45 rounds per minute is less than 1 round per second. That's painfully slow compared to full-auto. An assault rifle, by definition, has to have the select-fire or full-auto capability. Most times, when an AR is ILLEGALLY "tinkered with", it ends up emptying the magazine even if you release the trigger. Also, if an AR is fired rapid fire (not even full-auto) with an aluminum receiver and high-capacity mags, it will eventually jam, rendering it unusable. This has happened on more than one mass shooting. As I stated in another thread, the reason AR's are so common in mass shootings is that they are the most prevalent sporting rifle in the U.S.They are made by hundreds of manufacturers. Every single gun store in America has a wide variety of configurations and large numbers in stock. They are relatively inexpensive, readily accessorized and the ammo is very inexpensive (and readily available in quantity) compared to other calibers. You can get the same performance from a mini-fourteen, but they are very expensive by comparison.

The Maximum effective rate of fire the M4 is 45 rounds per minute at semi automatic....Which is the same as the AR at Semiautomatic. Pay attention

At burst, the max auto is 90 rpm....Not even close to being 10 times over the rate of the AR 15. Again, I noted the AR doesnt have burst, even though some people choose to manipulate their weapons in order to increase the rate of fire.

At sustained, 12-15 rpm.

If you don't consider M4's assault rifles, then the debate is pointless. Because it is obvious the purpose of the weapons...

The M4 is by definition, an assault rifle. The select-fire switch makes it so. If the M4 was semi-auto only, then it would not be. The M1 Garand was a semi-auto rifle. The M14 is an assault rifle. The M2 carbine is an assault rifle. They may have removed the full-auto in favor of the burst-fire, but that was more for sustained control and ammo conservation than for any other reason. That's why they have SAW's for covering and suppressing fire. But the AR has never been an assault rifle and never will be, if you use the military definition of an assault rifle.

Do you know how many times I used the Burst feature on my M4? Zero times other than a couple times at bootcamp. Does that mean I was really just using a long gun and not an assault rifle when I engaged the enemy with my M4 at semi-automatic fire? Who cares. It worked very well for war and that is what matters.

[AU_Tiger_88 417]

stay away from some of us who want to own AR-15's or other guns...you fail to blame the cause of why this happened. I didn't read anyone yell about fertilizer after the ok city bombing....and those calling people dumb because we don't agree with you wanting to ban weapons, you should look in the mirror. There is a radicalization going on in this country in the mosques being lead by wabbisim of the islamic religion whether you believe it or not. Some of our so called leaders have been brainwashed to be so PC that they refuse to call it out. There have been many links over the years to the brotherhood, etc that preach this kind of hate but some of you blame the guns...there are probably over 3 million of the ARs in this country that are owned by mostly law abiding citizens but when something like this happens some of you loose your minds and blame the gun....well someone has to pull the trigger and with that some of these killers are either deranged or they follow a certain type of fanatical religion. If you have ever spent time in certain parts of the world or even opened your eyes to it you would see it. Most on this board haven't spent much time with the locals in the middle east where this comes from. You would be thinking differently if you had and listened to some of what is being said over there...there are too many people out there that hate out of religion...that is the problem...corrupt religion is the main culprit and that isn't what is being called out in most of these cases....why? who the heck knows unless it is people who don't want to be offensive or be perceived as offensive...that is our problem...