Skip to main content

Staggering U.S. Firearm Facts
It's a tragedy that every day in the U.S., an average of 87 people die from gun violence — 54 from suicide, 31 from intentional homicide, and 2 from accidents.

We have almost as many civilian firearms as people. Estimates range from 270 million to 320 million firearms. The U.S. comprises only 5% of the world’s population but owns 50% of the world’s civilian guns. And gun ownership is now concentrated in only 34% of U.S. households, down from 50% in the 1970s.

The fact that 65% of the guns are owned by only 20% of U.S. households shows that gun manufacturers are marketing and selling to an ever-shrinking base of repeat customers. Remember that when you hear that gun and ammunition sales are soaring. It’s not that a lot of new people are running out to get a gun for protection. Rather, it’s the same ol’ paranoid crowd stockpiling for “black helicopter” day.

Also shocking is the sheer number of bullets and amount of carnage that an AR-15 military-style weapon and/or an extended magazine or drum can accomplish. Like "miles per hour" speed limits for the road, we need a sensible "shots per minute" speed limit for guns and ammunition. Any gun, gadget or contraption that enables a shooter to exceed that limit should be illegal.

No one needs a military-style weapon or a high-capacity magazine to defend themselves (and you surely don’t need them to hunt). Even the NRA and other gun extremists — hard-pressed to find even one example where such firepower was used or needed — must resort to fanciful hypotheticals. While AR-15s and high-capacity magazines have little redeeming value, they do impose undue risk on the rest of society and are disproportionately the chosen weaponry by those who want to create the most carnage in the shortest amount of time.

Just as support of speed limits and drunk-driving laws does not make one "anti-car," support of limits on such excessive weaponry does not make one "anti-gun." Nor does it lead to a slippery slope. It that were true, we’d all be driving at 1 mile per hour or back in the saddle!

Originally posted to ConnectTheDotsUSA on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 02:26 PM PDT.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA) and Shut Down the NRA.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Troubling that locations with highest % Dems, have (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Highest homicide rate.

    The pattern is staggering. A number of U.S. cities have gun
    homicide rates in line with the most deadly nations in the world.
    If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.
    Detroit's gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).
    Baltimore's rate (29.If it were a country, New Orleans (with a rate 62.1 gun murders per 100,000 people) would rank second in the world.
    Detroit's gun homicide rate (35.9) is just a bit less than El Salvador (39.9).
    Baltimore's rate (29.7) is not too far off that of Guatemala (34.8).
    Gun murder in Newark (25.4) and Miami (23.7) is comparable to Colombia (27.1).
    Washington D.C. (19) has a higher rate of gun homicide than Brazil (18.1).
    Atlanta's rate (17.2) is about the same as South Africa (17).
    Cleveland (17.4) has a higher rate than the Dominican Republic (16.3).
    Gun murder in Buffalo (16.5) is similar to Panama (16.2).
    Houston's rate (12.9) is slightly higher than Ecuador's (12.7).
    Gun homicide in Chicago (11.6) is similar to Guyana (11.5).
    Phoenix's rate (10.6) is slightly higher than Mexico (10).
    Los Angeles (9.2) is comparable to the Philippines (8.9).
    Boston rate (6.2) is higher than Nicaragua (5.9).
    New York, where gun murders have declined to just four per 100,000, is still higher than Argentina (3).
    Even the cities with the lowest homicide rates by American standards, like San Jose and Austin, compare to Albania and Cambodia respectively.

    "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

    by Kvetchnrelease on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 03:02:05 PM PDT

    •  Not sure what point you are trying to make. (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      second gen, Miggles, Smoh, wader, gramofsam1

      Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

      by JoanMar on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 03:12:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am. nt (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mookins, Smoh, JoanMar

        I'd like to start a new meme: "No means no" is a misnomer. It should be "Only 'Yes' means yes." Just because someone doesn't say "No" doesn't mean they've given consent. If she didn't say "Yes", there is no consent.

        by second gen on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 03:58:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  These cities have most restrictive gun laws (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Utahrd, noway2, theatre goon

        Because they are predominately democratic havens, yet they remain vulnerable to gun violence.

        "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

        by Kvetchnrelease on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 06:25:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Primarily because the guns are (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          looseleaf, Kevskos, gramofsam1, WakeUpNeo

          imported from states and cities with less restrictive gun laws.
          Just look at what's happening in Chicago, Illinois.

          Chicago is seen as having some of the most restrictive gun ordinances in the country. Gun shops are banned, and no civilian gun ranges exist. There is a ban on both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. But more than 15,000 of the guns traced by the police came from just outside the city limits in Cook County and in neighboring towns that permit gun stores.
          Didn't think there would be any mystery there.

          Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

          by JoanMar on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 06:57:29 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  But if the guns are being imported from other (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Utahrd, noway2, theatre goon

            places that have less restricted gun laws....why don't those places are have an extremely high rate of gun violence too?

            In other words, if Chicago's rates are higher than any where else around them....and it is only because the guns are being imported....why isn't the other places as high or higher than Chicago?

            •  You couple the availability of guns (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kevskos, WakeUpNeo

              with lack of jobs for parents and teenagers, schools in disrepair, rundown neighborhoods, drugs (again coming from outside) and general hopelessness and you get cities like Chicago.
              I would like to hear your explanation.

              Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

              by JoanMar on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 07:26:22 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  What do you mean by this: (0+ / 0-)
                I would like to hear your explanation.
                •  Why do you think there is more violence (0+ / 0-)

                  in urban areas than in suburban and rural areas?

                  Maya Angelou: "Without courage, we cannot practice any other virtue with consistency. We can't be kind, true, merciful, generous, or honest."

                  by JoanMar on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 07:36:33 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Same reasons you said....but that was not the (5+ / 0-)

                    implications stated above.  It is obvious that having strict gun laws has not helped Chicago curb its gun violence. So naturally the next thing that is brought up is "well it is because guns are being imported".....ummmm no.  Otherwise, you would find the same explosion in other places that do not have strict gun laws but are importing guns to Chicago....if the correlation was indeed due to the laws to begin with.

                    Strict gun laws do not hinder criminal behavior because criminals don't obey the law.  Strict gun laws hinder the law abiding gun owner's right to own one...because they do obey the law.

                    •  Indeed (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      theatre goon, Utahrd

                      Places have crime problems because of social, economic, and cultural issues.  The response is to pass gun restrictions in the hopes of reducing the crime.  It doesn't work, so the restrictions get worse until full scale bans are in place.  And yet the crime remains.

                      Giving a gun to a law abiding citizens does not cause more crime.  Taking guns away from criminals does not reduce crime.  The idea that more guns equals more crime is false.  Criminals are criminals regardless and are so because of factors other than a gun.

                    •  faulty argument (0+ / 0-)

                      You're ignoring population density.

                      Correct for that and your argument evaporates.

                      •  So you believe that strict gun laws hinder (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        criminal behavior?  Do gang members suddenly drop their weapons because they are now banned? The answer is no they do not. Why would they as generally they are already banned from owning them in the first place....if they are felons and/or too young and/or drug users.

                        Have you ever considered the fact that in places in which they have strict gun laws, that the general population (those who are law abiding and thus choose not to have a weapon to protect themselves....because to do so would make them a criminal) have no means to protect themselves and so you find a higher rate of robberies, muggings and/or home invasions in which they are victims involved and not just property? Chicago has the phenomenon.

                         I wonder if crime might go down in these areas if all of a sudden, guns were more prevalent in the hands of the law abiding. Perhaps the criminals would second guess the decision to pick any home on the block...when they are unaware if the occupants were armed or not.

                        •  Thank you, LaPierre! (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          I wonder if crime might go down in these areas if all of a sudden, guns were more prevalent in the hands of the law abiding. Perhaps the criminals would second guess the decision to pick any home on the block...when they are unaware if the occupants were armed or not.
                          •  Is there any way you could just answer the (0+ / 0-)

                            questions?  It is a discussion, is it not?

                             Do you believe that strict gun laws hinder criminal behavior?  That is the purpose of all the debates, all the discussions and the reasons behind every new it not? So each new law should, at the very least, have some general purpose toward that goal and/ or some kind of rational backing that would support that goal.

                        •  yes, gang violence will drop (0+ / 0-)

                          if you actually control weapons.

                          Other nations also have inner-city gangs, but their homicide rate is a fraction of ours.

                          But to get to real control, we need a permeant national gun registry, thorough background checks (including family members), strict liability (every gun and every bullet ALWAYS has someone liable for it), and stiff penalties (5+ years in prison) for things like straw-man purchases.

                          Do that, and gang violence will become vastly lower.

                        •  you don't need to wonder (0+ / 0-)

                          Correcting for everything else, homes with guns have double the homicide rate, a dozen times the suicide rate.

                          More legal guns => more dead people

                      •  Hawaii must be dangerous (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        New Hampshire, too.

                        "states like VT and ID are not 'real america'" -icemilkcoffee

                        by Utahrd on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 09:07:24 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Lets immagine for a moment... (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Utahrd, noway2, theatre goon

              All guns in the US disappear into the sky by way of the gun rapture magnet.  Firearms murder rates plummet, however, given that we can't keep drugs out (see also Prohibition and the current war on drugs) will also let guns leak back in.  The difference is that the distribution channels would be the exact same as the ones used by the licit drug trade.  We would be worse off than before as the supply chain would be controlled by organized crime.  

              •  Expanding upon this thought (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                theatre goon

                "Firearms murder rates plummet, however," overall murder rates remain because the murders use other weapons, or even their hands.

                •  That is to say (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  theatre goon, noway2

                  Criminal misuse of firearms would dramatically push up negative externalities and we would have a war on guns.  

                  Don't get me wrong, if you feel better being beaten to death than shot to death in a home invasion or robbery gone wrong, it is a victory.  

                  We would also see the strong dominate the physically weak.  Women who leave abusive relationships would be less able to defend themselves against there abuser should he go looking for her.  

                  An armed society may or may not be a polite society, but its also one where self defense does not require being built like a viking.  

            •  population density (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              WakeUpNeo, dconrad

              If you look at just two factors, population density (especially of 15-30 year old males) and gun possession rate, you can pretty much predict the gun homicide rate.

    •  I'm not sure Cambodia has accurate statistics (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wader, Kevskos, Be Skeptical, theatre goon

      Mostly everyone just does what Hun Sen tells them to do. If you want high or low statistics he will give them to you, or maybe not.

      They sure have a lot of guns. Martinis the popular nightclub used to make people check their guns before entering. I think most homicides are unreported. Who would you report them to?

      Denver is 5.6 as I remember. Maybe we do something right here.

      How big is your personal carbon footprint?

      by ban nock on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 03:35:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Say What ? (4+ / 0-)

      # 1         District of Columbia:     31.2     
      # 2         Alaska:     20     
      # 3         Louisiana:     19.5     
      # 4         Wyoming:     18.8    
      # 5         Arizona:     18     
      = 6         Nevada:     17.3

      Drop the name-calling MB 2/4/11 + Please try to use ratings properly! Kos 9/9/11

      by indycam on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 03:58:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Common cause (10+ / 0-)

      No, not the organization. Rather, these correlations have a common cause.

      Concentration of Democrats is not causing violence, nor is the violence causing people to vote Democratic.

      The areas you highlight, places like Detroit (which you list twice, presumably because we're so special), Baltimore (which you also list twice, getting it cut-n-pasted up with New Orleans), L.A., Washington D.C., and so on, all have high concentrations of poor people and, out of desperation, high levels of drug trafficking.

      Because there are a lot of poor and working class people in these places, they tend to vote Democratic, because they aren't stupid and can clearly see which party is interested in helping the working man and which party is more interested in cutting aid in the middle of an economic downturn.

      But, because these are also places plagued by poverty and drug trafficking, they have high rates of violence, particularly including gun violence.

      Can you think of any ways to address these problems?

      It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so. — Will Rogers

      by dconrad on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 04:02:47 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Elephant in the room (7+ / 0-)

      Many of these cities are democratic because of a low non-hispanic white population.  For instance Houston, which voted for Obama and has democratic representatives, is 25% non-hispanic white and 23% black.  In fact the murder rate is probably now closer to 10 in 100,000, on line with other major cities in the state and similar to other major cities in the country.

      But here is what is not included in this analysis.  Many states seem to pack black people into these cities and them let them kill each other.  For instance Detroit has 6 times the black population as Michigan in general, and 8 times the murder rate.  Newark has three times the black population and eight times the murder rate of New Jersey.  St. Louis has 4 times the black population and 5 times the murder rate of Missouri in general.

      But other places, like Texas show how one can not have a segregated community and keep the crime rate down as well.  Texas has a murder rate that is average for the country, and the big city rate is only about twice the average, which is not atypical.  Many, states, particularly nothern, just do not seem be able to get a handle on this murder, or even, rape thing.

      But here is the alarming thing to me.  Gun Violence requires guns.  And who manufacturers guns.  Well, of course the Freedom Group(Bushmaster) in North Carolina does, but who else.  Smith and Wesson of Massachusetts, Ruger of Connecticut, and Colt of Connecticut.  In fact Colt developed and pushed for the sale of the civilian AR-15 and owns the trademark.  Combined with the no-gun-control in vermont and the insistance of the NRA that straw purchases cannot be effectively tracked, and we have the current situation.  In which guns are sent to these cities and used to kill children.

      We could stop it with good laws, but the Connecticut pushes huge funds to the NRA which prevents even current laws from being enforced.

      It is a pretty story that somehow big cities or minorities are causing the high gun crime rate.  But it is not true.  It is do not have the moral fiber to know that selling weapons of mas destruction is not a legitimate means to make a profit.

    •  Urban areas (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Klusterpuck, dadoodaman, Smoh, Gooserock

      tend to have lots of Democrats and crime.

      What's the point of letting neoliberals into the tent when neoliberalism is burning down the campground?

      by Words In Action on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 04:26:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Democrats Dominate in Many Cities Because Poor (6+ / 0-)

      and working poor people tend to vote Democratic. Because they need to.

      It's not troubling, it's almost obvious.

      We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

      by Gooserock on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 05:34:09 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  that is shocking (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    noway2, Bailey2001, theatre goon

    the most shocking part of the diary is the fallacies.  You claim only 34 percent of households have guns, but that is based on what facts exactly?  Here is Gallup, saying the percentage is much higher.

    You say 65 percent of guns are owned by a small percentage of paranoid people; where did you get that stat?  And even if that were accurate, would that not be a good thing?  Would you prefer that "a bunch of new people were buying guns"?  If the "paranoid people" are wrong, then they are just keeping guns out of the hands of others for no good reason.

    You say an AR-15 can fire 45 rounds in a minute.  Again, where do you get this made up fact?  Assuming there are lots of 45 round mags, there could also be 70 round mags, or heck, 80 round mags (we are making stuff up here so why not?).  Well, since an AR-15 30 rounder can easily be emptied  in less than 30 seconds, your stats are wrong, the real figures are actually even more SHOCKING!

  •  The most staggering firearms fact (8+ / 0-)

    is that some people in the U.S. own so many firearms, if they tried to carry them all at once they would literally stagger.

    I think many people really fail to appreciate the rate at which modern semiautomatic rifles and handguns can fire. Back when the Amadou Diallo killing had recently happened I was discussing it with someone online, and many people were marveling at the fact that 41 shots had been fired, and someone pointed out that with the kind of pistols the police were carrying which were semiautomatic and had 15-round magazines (plus one in the chamber), two of the four officers had fired 32 of those 41 rounds and had probably fired them all within a matter of seconds of the shooting having started.

    The idea that two people could fire 32 rounds in just a very few seconds, without any sort of machine gun being involved, was a complete eye-opener to me at the time. It's something I try to keep in mind when reading other stories about shootings, since the timeline is often critical to trying to piece together what happened.

    I think a lot of people, if told that the Newtown shooter had fired over 150 rounds in a few minutes, would assume he must have been using a machine gun. I think we ought to ask whether guns should be restricted based on rate of fire.

    It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so. — Will Rogers

    by dconrad on Sat Apr 06, 2013 at 04:16:21 PM PDT

    •  World record for a revolver using a speedloader (0+ / 0-)

      is 12 shots in 3 seconds.  Again, this is a revolver and speedloaders are common, abundant and cheap.

      150 shots in 5 minutes is not terribly hard to do.

      •  When you have to aim at moving targets (0+ / 0-)

        in a stressful environment, sure it is.

        BTW this argument will come back on you if you ever argue that it's necessary to have a 30-round magazine.

        I see what you did there.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 06:59:49 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The point is that is someone is hell bent on mass (0+ / 0-)

          murder they are certainly not going to be deterred in the least because of some law on the book that says they will get a fine or another charge for having 11 rounds.  It's stupid to even thing so.  

          If they are about to blow people away and themselves in the process, they will no more be hindered by round limits as they would be to commit murder in the first place.

          This issue of banning certain guns, is just as stupid. For one, it does nothing to remove the millions on the streets now.  Number two, any gun has the potential to be used in mass murder.  Number three, most guns can be modified easily.  Number four, if a murderer goes into a place in which the rest of the good people are unarmed and have little or no security, whoever has the weapon and the murderous intent is going to win in almost all matter the law of how many rounds you can have nor which weapons you can does nothing at all to stop the evil coming through the door.

          Columbine proved this....we had a current AWB in place and they still got their weapons of destruction and still committed the biggest school shooting in history to that date....and in just a few minutes they combined shot 175 rounds but in that school shooting they used 9mm firearms and shotguns....and simply modified two of them to be more effective.  Also, the place was crawling with police officers after just a few minutes and they were in a high school not elementary with coaches, male teachers, larger boys and still were able to reload and reload.

          If someone is hell bent...they are hell bent.

          •  The point is that you have to be (0+ / 0-)

            an expert in a controlled environment to get as many rounds off as an amateur with a semiauto and a large magazine can. It's a matter of degree. You're right, occassionally a mass murder will still happen...but if 4 go down instead of 20, that's an improvement.

            I see what you did there.

            by GoGoGoEverton on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 10:13:05 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But how to you make the 4 happen...what law would (0+ / 0-)

              ensure that to any degree... much less to a high degree of any certainty.

               Columbine was an 18 year and a 17 year shooters, and neither one had ever even been hunters previously or shot anything to any degree.  They were not trained in anything other that been psychotic.  

          •  No, the point is (0+ / 0-)

            that virtually none of these guys have made any attempt to get a hold of anything illegal. Sure, they wouldn't care that buying a 30-round magazine is going to get them in legal trouble, but they all used whatever was easily available.

            If you don't believe that, ask yourself why not one of these nuts has gone to whatever trouble would be required to get their hands on a fully automatic weapon. Are you sure that there isn't just one of them crazy enough to want to spray a crowed with full-auto fire?

            But they never do. Why? Because you have to jump through a lot of hoops or break a lot of laws to get a fully automatic weapon. They get a semiautomatic rifle or pistol because that's what's readily available on the market (or in their mom's gun cabinet).

            And they get a 30-round magazine because you can just buy one at the local gun shop or order one online.

            It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so. — Will Rogers

            by dconrad on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:53:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The Columbine killers used guns that were all (0+ / 0-)

              illegal for them to buy or own or to possess.

               They acquired them illegally, modified them and went through all of the "hoops" to get them because they because evil hearted and hell bent on murder.  Those who are hell bent on committing mass murder are crazy enough not to care about your bans.  For them, it took a couple of phone calls, a friend and a little bit of money.   They got them, went to the prom, and then a few days later shot up a school.  

              That's it.  That was the "hoops" they had to go through.  Not one single thing currently being discussed today would have stopped them in any way, or made it the least bit harder on them.

      •  Yeah, but I don't think any of these nuts (0+ / 0-)

        could handle that. That requires a great deal of practice. These guys are all about the path of least resistance.

        It isn't what we don't know that gives us trouble, it's what we know that ain't so. — Will Rogers

        by dconrad on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 08:50:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Rate of fire should be restricted. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Kevskos, jan4insight, a2nite

      Not that it will be. But the rate of fire of these modern weapons exceed what most non-gun owners, and I think many legislators, comprehend.
      Take a look, if you haven't, at YouTube of "AR-15 bump stock" (the first few videos, you don't have to scroll).
      Now, I don't get to be king for a day, but that weapon, and other advanced semi-autos, are, essentially, machine guns.
      Not in law. Legally they are not. But again, go over to YouTube and take a look.
      I think everyone in the gun debate should, and make up your own mind.
      That's a machine gun to me...

  •  The infographic makes a true but still... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles, WakeUpNeo

    ...misleading claim. "45 shots can be fired in 1 min. by an AR-15."

    The reality? The shooter in this video fires 30 rounds in 4.11 seconds. The rate of fire is 451 rounds per minute.

    Some have said in regards to another video showing a rapid rate of AR-15 fire by this same shooter that he obviously had an automatic, not a semi-automatic. That is, they claim, he held down the trigger until the magazine emptied: automatic fire. But the slow-motion segment at the end of this video proves without a doubt that he squeezed the trigger individually for each shot: semi-automatic fire.

    Even if he were to take 10 seconds to reload, which is far longer than how long it actually takes, he could fire 120 rounds in one minute.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 12:48:46 AM PDT

  •  The tail Wags the Dog - Again (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Miggles, WakeUpNeo

    Wingnut Wayne LaPierre wants everyone to BELIEVE that
    the Majority of the Country is on His Side.

    "65% of the guns are owned by only 20% of U.S. households"

    The NRA is using the BLOOD Money from the Manufacturers
    to Corrupt the Political process and to LIE to the Public.

    Gun Control MUST be a Major Issue in the 2014 House
    and Senate races.

    The Spineless Congress has to Learn that there is a High
    Price for taking Orders from the NRA.

    On Giving Advice: Smart People Don't Need It and Stupid People Don't Listen

    by Brian76239 on Sun Apr 07, 2013 at 06:48:24 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site