Yeti cuts ties with NRA

[270person]

Originally Posted by JamesB

Here are some counter points to yours:

Rifles are not that concealable, and until very recently most mass shooters used handguns.

Please define very recently.

And the Vegas shooting? Less concealable didn't seem to matter much there. Apparently it's not too hard to set up a bunker in a hotel room over the course of days and have at it. In fact it didn't seem to matter much in every situation when an AR type was used. They're still rifles aren't they?

Actually if a handgun had been used in many of the situations you mentioned it would have been difficult for the perp to even come close with the shots fired. Pretty much the same odds as anyone in the Vegas crowd shooting back at him.

Handguns offer most of the same advantages at close range: quick acquisition, low recoil, high capacity. They also make less noise so victims may not be aware of shootings in the same building.

Mostly bunk. Even cops hit intended targets a low percentage of the time at 20 yards with handguns in the middle of a firefight.. This and Ron White sum it up best. Nice shootin Elmer Fudd.

http://redneckperil.blogspot.ca/2011...s-kidding.html

Also, and this is very important to the argument, the victims are UNARMED.

Yes. All of the victims in every mass killing you alluded to earlier should have had CC permits. Including the little kids at Sandy Hook. That would have prevented things happening.

There should be armed guards at every school. Teachers should be armed. students should be armed. Everybody should be armed. That'd save (many many - shout out to Trump) lives.

Gotta love the "more guns = fewer killings" theory.

[Talking moose]

Originally Posted by 270person

Please define very recently.

And the Vegas shooting? Less concealable didn't seem to matter much there. Apparently it's not too hard to set up a bunker in a hotel room over the course of days and have at it. In fact it didn't seem to matter much in every situation when an AR type was used. They're still rifles aren't they?

Actually if a handgun had been used in many of the situations you mentioned it would have been difficult for the perp to even come close with the shots fired. Pretty much the same odds as anyone in the Vegas crowd shooting back at him.



Mostly bunk. Even cops hit intended targets a low percentage of the time at 20 yards with handguns in the middle of a firefight.. This and Ron White sum it up best. Nice shootin Elmer Fudd.

http://redneckperil.blogspot.ca/2011...s-kidding.html



Yes. All of the victims in every mass killing you alluded to earlier should have had CC permits. Including the little kids at Sandy Hook. That would have prevented things happening.

There should be armed guards at every school. Teachers should be armed. students should be armed. Everybody should be armed. That'd save (many many - shout out to Trump) lives.

Gotta love the "more guns = fewer killings" theory.

If you wanted to do a mass murder by gun, where would you choose?
An anti gun protest.
Or
A shooting tournament at a gun range?
Yes guns save lives.

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by 270person

Please define very recently.

And the Vegas shooting? Less concealable didn't seem to matter much there. Apparently it's not too hard to set up a bunker in a hotel room over the course of days and have at it. In fact it didn't seem to matter much in every situation when an AR type was used. They're still rifles aren't they?

Actually if a handgun had been used in many of the situations you mentioned it would have been difficult for the perp to even come close with the shots fired. Pretty much the same odds as anyone in the Vegas crowd shooting back at him.



Mostly bunk. Even cops hit intended targets a low percentage of the time at 20 yards with handguns in the middle of a firefight.. This and Ron White sum it up best. Nice shootin Elmer Fudd.

http://redneckperil.blogspot.ca/2011...s-kidding.html



Yes. All of the victims in every mass killing you alluded to earlier should have had CC permits. Including the little kids at Sandy Hook. That would have prevented things happening.

There should be armed guards at every school. Teachers should be armed. students should be armed. Everybody should be armed. That'd save (many many - shout out to Trump) lives.

Gotta love the "more guns = fewer killings" theory.

The AR15s are the gun of choice for mass shooters has evolved over the past 5 years or so.

There are none so blind as those that refuse to see.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...on-types-used/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_shooting

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_shooting

Also the comments wrt victims being unarmed were not to suggest that they should have been armed, it was very emphatically to suggest that without the concern of being attacked a mass murderer has time to reload, shoot slowly and maximize casualties. A semi auto rifle does indeed allow him to shoot faster, but that in itself does not mean there will be more casualties.

The Las Vegas shooter used distance to effect so obviously a rifle was more effective, however the Texas tower shooter was quite effective with a hunting rifle. If he had chosen a more crowded venue he most assuredly would have killed more victims (even without an AR15!)

[Rockman]

Originally Posted by JamesB

Again it is pretty easy to make decisions based on feelings, and jump on a single fact without looking any deeper.

There have been mass shootings where AR15s were not used. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Univer...tower_shooting
What do you know, a bolt action rifle with a scope on it. Should they therefore be banned?

Secondly, one might ask why a rifle that has been commercially sold since 1970, has only just very recently been used in a relatively large number of mass shootings.
Could there be something else at play? Another possible conclusion is that the press themselves play a role in the decisions of mass murderers.
There is plenty of research concerning the contagion effect in suicide: https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...de-contagion1/
https://www.hhs.gov/answers/mental-h...ean/index.html
The very same logic applies to mass murderers who see that the press will make them famous, and at the same time tells them how to dress and what equipment to use. We end up with copy cats and blame the equipment rather than looking any deeper.
I would argue that almost any firearm introduced into a mass of defenseless people will do great damage. An AR15 offers very little advantage where the victims are unarmed and defenseless. Do you honestly think that elementary school aged children could not be massacred with a shotgun?
I would suggest that if such a crime were to occur and the press then provided their standard vilification of the shooter (providing fame), and the firearm (providing directions), the result would be a bunch of massacres using shotguns.

Very well said, JamesB! This is an aspect too often ignored. The same media who decries so many things could look itself in the mirror in this regard and do their part. But no, "people need/want to know!" (Read: My profits are more important)

There's a call in some small media sources that I've seen, to not provide details, not publish a picture as much as possible and rarely or never mention the name of any active shooters, to specifically "gray man" them so as to address this. Good going, I say!

[EZM]

Originally Posted by JamesB

Access to firearms is an important consideration. I have not addressed licensing, but assuming it works (the evidence is mixed), look at how many of the listed murderers were missed by the system:

Aurora: AR-15 Shooter diagnosed with mental problems, attempted suicid epreviously
Orlando: AR-15 Shooter on terrorist screening list
Parkland: AR-15 Shooter made death threats, and assaulted peers. No action taken.
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15 Shooter murdered firearm owner and stole weapons
Umpqua CC: AR-15
Waffle House: AR-15 Firearms license revoked, mental health issues
Texas Church: AR-15 Shooter should have been prohibited, files not updated
San Bernardino: AR-15 Shooters investigated for openly jihadic postings

You perceive the AR15 as the best choice, but that might just be a reflection of how the press reports the issues.
Here are some counter points to yours:
Rifles are not that concealable, and until very recently most mass shooters used handguns.
Handguns offer most of the same advantages at close range: quick acquisition, low recoil, high capacity. They also make less noise so victims may not be aware of shootings in the same building.
Also, and this is very important to the argument, the victims are UNARMED. Trapping a bunch of unarmed people in a building allows a mass murderer to use any firearm to great advantage. You have to be purposely blinded to this to ignore all of the mass shootings that did not involve AR15s.
Please have a look at the contagion effect. I think it is the most likely reason AR15's have become the fad in these shootings. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207262/

I agree with you that in the overwhelming majority of the cases the person is deranged - exactly to my point. You can also add into the Vegas shooting that shooter suffered with mental illness (depression) and was on medications known to cause paranoid thoughts in some individuals. I think we agree there.

But where we completely disagree is in the effectiveness of which type of weapon someone should/would use in these situations.

A handguns accuracy is significantly less, without question, to that of a long arm.

Target re-acquisition, a long arm and carbine, for anyone who shoots both handguns and carbines will tell you, is far superior in this regard as well.

Magazine capacity - once again - the AR wins here.

As far as concealing it in your way in is concerned - OK fine, the handgun is better - but I don't think this is a concern at all - once you have pulled your weapon and are walking into a building - it's already game on - you are not playing surprise quick draw anymore - you are likely marching down and taking shots at the first person you see given the fact these killings are not targeted, rather they are indiscriminate.

In almost every tactical situation (and tactical professionals) will use a carbine (or sub) type weapon - because, as anyone who has shot and used both pistols, subs and long arms in a simulated tactical situation will tell you - just having your lead hand further forward to control the muzzle jump to re-acquire the target is a HUGE advantage.

Sure - there are expert six shooter competition people out there - super fast, super accurate - but these are rare.

We are talking about "the most suitable platform to use" in a situation like this.

I adamantly disagree - so there's no point in arguing about opposing perspectives here.

I really don't want to get into this discussion - there is no point in explaining it - simply not even an argument.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by 270person

Please define very recently.

And the Vegas shooting? Less concealable didn't seem to matter much there. Apparently it's not too hard to set up a bunker in a hotel room over the course of days and have at it. In fact it didn't seem to matter much in every situation when an AR type was used. They're still rifles aren't they?

Actually if a handgun had been used in many of the situations you mentioned it would have been difficult for the perp to even come close with the shots fired. Pretty much the same odds as anyone in the Vegas crowd shooting back at him.



Mostly bunk. Even cops hit intended targets a low percentage of the time at 20 yards with handguns in the middle of a firefight.. This and Ron White sum it up best. Nice shootin Elmer Fudd.

http://redneckperil.blogspot.ca/2011...s-kidding.html



Yes. All of the victims in every mass killing you alluded to earlier should have had CC permits. Including the little kids at Sandy Hook. That would have prevented things happening.

There should be armed guards at every school. Teachers should be armed. students should be armed. Everybody should be armed. That'd save (many many - shout out to Trump) lives.

Gotta love the "more guns = fewer killings" theory.

Haha. You are really grasping here.

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by EZM

I agree with you that in the overwhelming majority of the cases the person is deranged - exactly to my point. You can also add into the Vegas shooting that shooter suffered with mental illness (depression) and was on medications known to cause paranoid thoughts in some individuals. I think we agree there.

But where we completely disagree is in the effectiveness of which type of weapon someone should/would use in these situations.

A handguns accuracy is significantly less, without question, to that of a long arm.

Target re-acquisition, a long arm and carbine, for anyone who shoots both handguns and carbines will tell you, is far superior in this regard as well.

Magazine capacity - once again - the AR wins here.

As far as concealing it in your way in is concerned - OK fine, the handgun is better - but I don't think this is a concern at all - once you have pulled your weapon and are walking into a building - it's already game on - you are not playing surprise quick draw anymore - you are likely marching down and taking shots at the first person you see given the fact these killings are not targeted, rather they are indiscriminate.

Every single tactical situation (and tactical professionals) will use a carbine type weapon - because, as anyone who has shot and used both pistols, subs and long arms in a simulated tactical situation will tell you - just having your lead hand further forward to control the muzzle jump to re-acquire the target is a HUGE advantage.

Sure - there are expert six shooter competition people out there - super fast, super accurate - but these are rare.

We are talking about "the most suitable platform to use" in a situation like this.

I adamantly disagree - so there's no point in arguing about opposing perspectives here.

You have a preconceived notion of how a mass shooting takes place. You might want to read some of the details of actual mass shootings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_s..._United_States
Very often people are made to lie on the floor and the murderer walks by and shoots them from feet away. No need to be an expert shot, trick shooter or anything else.
If the victims lack the means to fight back they either comply or try to flee. If exits are blocked or slow movement, the murderer does not need to be fast or particularly accurate.
The exceptions would be those that opt for distance to provide them surprise or safety. In these cases, rifles are certainly more effective, but again, the AR15 is not the only platform available, and is more likely to be used because of press reports suggesting it is the best choice than any other reason.

[Rockman]

Great points, EZM and James, as to people control. Between using existing legislation, addressing failures that have occurred so many times, and targeting guns falling into the wrong hands rather than blanket bans which will be ineffective, so much could be done that isn't being seriously looked at.

As to handguns vs. AR15's, handguns have been used the most in mass shootings. By far. Regardless of the tactical superiority of AR15's, this is a fact.

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by Rockman

Great points, EZM and James, as to people control. Between using existing legislation, addressing failures that have occurred so many times, and targeting guns falling into the wrong hands rather than blanket bans which will be ineffective, so much could be done that isn't being seriously looked at.

As to handguns vs. AR15's, handguns have been used the most in mass shootings. By far. Regardless of the tactical superiority of AR15's, this is a fact.

The point that I have been trying to make is that the "tactical superiority" is based on engaging armed opponents. What most people fail to comprehend is that mass shooters don't, and regardless of the weapon chosen, the murderer has already set the stage to have over whelming superiority over his victims.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by JamesB

The point that I have been trying to make is that the "tactical superiority" is based on engaging armed opponents. What most people fail to comprehend is that mass shooters don't, and regardless of the weapon chosen, the murderer has already set the stage to have over whelming superiority over his victims.

Brilliant. Great posts.

Common sense and facts may not be popular, but they will always win the arguments.

[brslk]

I'll just leave these here.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by JamesB

You have a preconceived notion of how a mass shooting takes place. You might want to read some of the details of actual mass shootings. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_s..._United_States
Very often people are made to lie on the floor and the murderer walks by and shoots them from feet away. No need to be an expert shot, trick shooter or anything else.
If the victims lack the means to fight back they either comply or try to flee. If exits are blocked or slow movement, the murderer does not need to be fast or particularly accurate.
The exceptions would be those that opt for distance to provide them surprise or safety. In these cases, rifles are certainly more effective, but again, the AR15 is not the only platform available, and is more likely to be used because of press reports suggesting it is the best choice than any other reason.

No I don't have any "preconceived notion of what a mass shooting takes place". You have no idea what my position is, or how much I know, or don't know, about the details in these tragedies.

And No thanks, not interesting in reading something for myself which is, at best, a relevant data point, compared to the actual discussion we are having.

I'd rather just hear your perspective specific to your statement of why you think a pistol is the best weapons system to use in these situations.

You can comment on anything I say, that's fair game, but making assumptions on what I believe/know in an attempt to deflect this conversation doesn't change a thing.

The only point of contention we have is which weapon system is more effective to use in these situations for the shooter - that's all, that's it ...

All I said was ....

The AR is a far superior weapon compared to a pistol in almost every one of these scenarios - that's my position.

Weather it's Vegas at longer ranges with crowds moving around, or Columbine, where kids ran around in chaos .... OR any other scenario you describe as indicative, like all the victims balled up and cowering in a corner.

The AR-15 (5.56 round) is, in most cases, at every range, compared to almost every pistol cartridge, is going to punch further through a greater number of victims and do far more damage to more people. Those are facts and those are ballistics.

But that's not even all of the argument - you still are saying the advantages of Recoil control, target re-acquisition, magazine capacity, range, rate of fire, etc... aren't factor of consideration????

You gave me ONE point where the pistol has an advantage - the ability to conceal it. That's it? What else?

And yet you think that one advantage outweighs everything else I specifically outlined makes it a more suitable weapon?

We disagree. Big deal. No need to try and roping me into a derail.

Keep in mind it was you who challenged my statement - and since you have no sound argument - you are deflecting.

Either let's hear it - specific to this topic - or let's just move on. No big deal.

[fordtruckin]

So back to yeti and the nra....

[^v^Tinda wolf^v^]

I support the NRA and followed them on my home page. After continuous posts reguarding people’s religious beliefs they were BLOCKED! I don’t really care what people believe as long as I don’t have to hear about it, especially on a page I have full control over.

[270person]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Haha. You are really grasping here.

Easy for you to say without specifics on what parts you disagree with. Pretty much your modus operandi.

[270person]

Originally Posted by JamesB

The AR15s are the gun of choice for mass shooters has evolved over the past 5 years or so.

A semi auto rifle does indeed allow him to shoot faster, but that in itself does not mean there will be more casualties.

Huh? Versus a single shot or 3-5 cap mag b/a?

Why do you think AR types have become the go to? Slow actions and minimal mag caps?

Stop playing silly bugger.

[Talking moose]

https://www.facebook.com/DailyViralS...5956571470446/

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by 270person

Huh? Versus a single shot or 3-5 cap mag b/a?

Why do you think AR types have become the go to? Slow actions and minimal mag caps?

Stop playing silly bugger.

Actually I spent quite a bit of time laying out factual arguments, and providing links with research. If you have reading comprehension problems, that's your problem not mine.

Once again, the AR15 platform has become the go to gun for mass shootings because the press repeatedly tells shooters that it is the most effective. (See contagion effect).
Most mass shooters in fact use pistols.
Many mass shooters have used bolt action rifles, shotguns and slower firing weapons. They are shooting at helpless unarmed victims, mostly at point blank range and without any particular reason to rush as their victims are usually not fighting back.
Those are the facts. Your phobia's are just that.

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by EZM

No I don't have any "preconceived notion of what a mass shooting takes place". You have no idea what my position is, or how much I know, or don't know, about the details in these tragedies.

And No thanks, not interesting in reading something for myself which is, at best, a relevant data point, compared to the actual discussion we are having.

I'd rather just hear your perspective specific to your statement of why you think a pistol is the best weapons system to use in these situations.

You can comment on anything I say, that's fair game, but making assumptions on what I believe/know in an attempt to deflect this conversation doesn't change a thing.

The only point of contention we have is which weapon system is more effective to use in these situations for the shooter - that's all, that's it ...

All I said was ....

The AR is a far superior weapon compared to a pistol in almost every one of these scenarios - that's my position.

Weather it's Vegas at longer ranges with crowds moving around, or Columbine, where kids ran around in chaos .... OR any other scenario you describe as indicative, like all the victims balled up and cowering in a corner.

The AR-15 (5.56 round) is, in most cases, at every range, compared to almost every pistol cartridge, is going to punch further through a greater number of victims and do far more damage to more people. Those are facts and those are ballistics.

But that's not even all of the argument - you still are saying the advantages of Recoil control, target re-acquisition, magazine capacity, range, rate of fire, etc... aren't factor of consideration????

You gave me ONE point where the pistol has an advantage - the ability to conceal it. That's it? What else?

And yet you think that one advantage outweighs everything else I specifically outlined makes it a more suitable weapon?

We disagree. Big deal. No need to try and roping me into a derail.

Keep in mind it was you who challenged my statement - and since you have no sound argument - you are deflecting.

Either let's hear it - specific to this topic - or let's just move on. No big deal.

You have been very specific about what your position is and what you do not know about mass shootings. Your ignorance is front and centre.

I did not suggest that the pistol is the best weapon for mass shootings. I stated that it was the most COMMONLY USED. The rest of the talking points were simply comparing it to what YOU stated was the BEST WEAPON to be used for mass shootings.
If you actually take the time to read what I posted, it was simply the argument that mass shooters cause enormous damage because they attack unarmed victims. Their choice of weaponry is largely immaterial, and many have done great carnage with what you consider to be weapons totally unsuited to mass shootings.
My comments do no relate to ballistics, reliability, accurate range or any other technical considerations. I am simply trying to point out to those that suggest AR15s cause mass shootings that the reality is they make little to no difference.
Also I am suggesting that the use of AR15s over the past 5 years has more to do with the contagion effect of the the press telling potential mass murderers what the best weapon system is, than any real advantage of the system when shooting at stationary, unarmed victims at point blank range.

[Bisch]

Not sure what firearm choice has to do with a commercial cooler manufacturers decision to part ways with the NRA...

My hope is that Governments, media and pundits focus on the real problem.. mental health.

Loss of life is tragic regardless of means, and the precipitating factors are usually easily visible when the post mortums are done.

Bringing new and more regulations to law-abiding people who principally hunt and target shoot isn’t going to lessen the criminal use of firearms (who don’t register or get permits in the first place) or those who suffer from mental breaks or disease.

My humble opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[fallen1817]

Wasn't this whole thing found to be "Fake News"?

[muledriver]

Originally Posted by fallen1817

Wasn't this whole thing found to be "Fake News"?

Pretty much, but the NRA outrage brigade has a story line that they keep feeding. The Putin apparatchiks taught them well.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by JamesB

You perceive the AR15 as the best choice, but that might just be a reflection of how the press reports the issues.
Here are some counter points to yours:
Rifles are not that concealable, and until very recently most mass shooters used handguns.
Handguns offer most of the same advantages at close range: quick acquisition, low recoil, high capacity. They also make less noise so victims may not be aware of shootings in the same building.
]

So you pick apart my comments, present zero facts to the specific position, have nothing but deflections, YET your pride won't let you move on and have to keep the circus going .... OK ..... perfect .....

Clearly you do not own a AR or pistol and probably have probably never shot them ..... the facts are clear and I won't be repeating them again - if you haven't had the capability to understand them so far, you probably don't possess the capacity.

Conceal Advantage = Pistol

Recoil Control = AR

Target Re-Acquisition = AR

Capacity = AR

Range = AR

Clearing FTF Jams = AR

Ballistics = AR

It's so ironic to me that you can't (won't) even consider the point (I, or anyone else, for that matter made) is worth discussing civilly, and you certainly cannot admit you are wrong - so I'm done with you.

Your credibility is gone with the absurdity of your continued pursuit of being right even when you are wrong.

If you MUST have the last word ... fire away ........ the more you talk the better you show yourself to the rest of us.

Congratulations.

[EZM]

Originally Posted by JamesB

Access to firearms is an important consideration. I have not addressed licensing, but assuming it works (the evidence is mixed), look at how many of the listed murderers were missed by the system:

Aurora: AR-15 Shooter diagnosed with mental problems, attempted suicid epreviously
Orlando: AR-15 Shooter on terrorist screening list
Parkland: AR-15 Shooter made death threats, and assaulted peers. No action taken.
Las Vegas: AR-15
Sandy Hook: AR-15 Shooter murdered firearm owner and stole weapons
Umpqua CC: AR-15
Waffle House: AR-15 Firearms license revoked, mental health issues
Texas Church: AR-15 Shooter should have been prohibited, files not updated
San Bernardino: AR-15 Shooters investigated for openly jihadic postings

You perceive the AR15 as the best choice, but that might just be a reflection of how the press reports the issues.
Here are some counter points to yours:
Rifles are not that concealable, and until very recently most mass shooters used handguns.
Handguns offer most of the same advantages at close range: quick acquisition, low recoil, high capacity. They also make less noise so victims may not be aware of shootings in the same building.
Also, and this is very important to the argument, the victims are UNARMED. Trapping a bunch of unarmed people in a building allows a mass murderer to use any firearm to great advantage. You have to be purposely blinded to this to ignore all of the mass shootings that did not involve AR15s.
Please have a look at the contagion effect. I think it is the most likely reason AR15's have become the fad in these shootings. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207262/

See your own comments below ..... and YES an AR is the best (most effective) type of weapons system used in these tragic situations.

Don't try and argue otherwise. Saying a "hammer" could be used in these events is true, but really?????

And, BTW, I read what you posted and your link on Wikipedia .... why don't you look at your own link and have a look at which types of weapons consistently resulted in the highest number of casualties per event. This happened in numerous situations - NONE of the top 10 or 15 were with any other weapons platform.

The facts would indicate this same article underpins (the AR's) advantage in effectivity over other types of platforms.

Looks to me like you hung yourself with your own rope .... The irony has me crestfallen.

Good Night.