Orlando

[SB Shock]

Someone with a well-holstered sidearm isn't going to be able to unlatch the strap holding the sidearm in the holster, remove the weapon from the holster, remove the trigger safety, disengage the firing safety, take aim on the shooter and get a round off in that amount of time.

1. I think you might be thinking of Barney Fife holsters. Most people (including LEO) have modern day retention holsters for their weapons and they are made to allow you to quickly deploy your weapon.

2. Modern day striker fired pistol (Glock or say Springfield XD/XDM) don't have firing safety. The trigger safety does not slow anything down, as it just there to protect against something pulling on the trigger in an inadvertent manner. It is engaged as soon as you finger is engaged on the tripper. If you go to Glock site, they have some nice pictures of how their "safe action" works. Now I guess if you were going old school and carrying a 1911 or Beretta you would have all the safety accoutrements.

If you have a carry/conceal type pistol, say the Springfield XDS, which has the trigger and grip safety - they don't slow things down. If you have S&W Shield, it does have a safety - but if you train with it properly, the safety should be coming off as it coming out of holster (if you are using the safety).

There is virtually no defense against an assault rifle in an urban terrorism situation.

I can see where a rifle would give you a distinct advantage, like the UT tower sniper or the wichita downtown sniper who had long LOS. But in close quarter, unless you are trained well can be tougher. In this case the off duty cop at the nightclub was able to quickly respond - he engaged him immediately and with the help of responding officers actually forced him to retreat to a bathroom and allowed 100's patrons to escape.

[shock]

The AR-15 civilian weapon is semi-automatic. The M-16 military weapon is fully automatic. Important distinction.

Also, the guns used in nam were colts and had little twist in the rifling causing the bullets to tumble after 15 yards. Literally no spin. Things have changed significantly since then.

[shock]

Of course. I've fired both the semi and the fully models. Even someone with incredibly slow fingers or reflexes can get off about 5 or 6 rounds a second in semi mode. That means it takes 5 or 6 seconds to empty a 30-round clip.

Someone with a well-holstered sidearm isn't going to be able to unlatch the strap holding the sidearm in the holster, remove the weapon from the holster, remove the trigger safety, disengage the firing safety, take aim on the shooter and get a round off in that amount of time. There is virtually no defense against an assault rifle in an urban terrorism situation.

BS. They wont be facing eachother like the OK Corral. They will be in fight mode and when **** hits the fan the first thing to do is hit the deck and find cover. While you wont beat the shooter to an empty mag, you will likely stop the second mag.

[wufan]

I'm not familiar with an AR

I thought this meant you weren't familiar with an AR.

Of course. I've fired both the semi and the fully models. Even someone with incredibly slow fingers or reflexes can get off about 5 or 6 rounds a second in semi mode. That means it takes 5 or 6 seconds to empty a 30-round clip.

Apparently you became an expert on the AR in the last 24 hours.

Someone with a well-holstered sidearm isn't going to be able to unlatch the strap holding the sidearm in the holster, remove the weapon from the holster, remove the trigger safety, disengage the firing safety, take aim on the shooter and get a round off in that amount of time. There is virtually no defense against an assault rifle in an urban terrorism situation.

You are apparently not familiar with carrying modern day pistols.

[Dan]

As Khan mentioned earlier, a conceal and carry guy tried to stop the shooter in the Houston shooting recently. He had a pistol, the shooter at an AR-15. The guy with the pistol got shot 4 times but lived. There was no contest. I'm torn on the gun control issue. On one hand, we gotta figure out how to keep the guns out of the hands of the crazies, on the other hand, I liken the gun control people to the drug people. Initially they just wanted to legalize "medical" marijuana. Now, they will freely admit that it was just the best way to open the door for full drug legalization.

[MoValley John]

Regarding gun control and terrorism, we need to be smart about our decisions and view what has worked and not worked. France has established the toughest gun control in Europe. With no guns, terrorists avoid France. In France, there are never mass shootings. Terrorism doesn't happen in France because there are no guns. We need to be more like France.

[shocka khan]

10 rounds vs 20 vs 100. Is this really where he debate is at? "It sure will be inconvenient for me to shoot hapless victim 11-20 so I guess I will just write an angry letter." How about those assault rifles: "if I don't have a comfortable handle, then there's no way I can shoot people and NOT feel like an amateur."

It's either legal to defend yourself or it isn't. That's my philosophical belief. It's not perfect, but it's consistent. No offense to Mr. Kahn, but I don't want him deciding who is or isn't capable of defending him/herself.

And I don't want to decide, either. I would like our elected legislative officials to decide. I would like to see a full and open debate. I would like to see honesty. Both extremes on this issue are not being honest. One side wants to take all your guns away and the other wants to arm every patient at Prairie View with a semi-automatic rifle.

As a nation, we used to be able to do things like this before the extremists started putting labels on the people they did not like and the lobbyists made it rain cash. Maybe the electorate will start getting angry and bounce some of the extremists on both sides of this issue.

[jdshock]

This tragedy didn't happen because there were are rifles for sale, this tragedy happened because this guy decided he wanted to kill people. He chose a rifle and glock. If he didn't have them, he would have chosen something different - car bomb, knife, airplane, car, or buy an automatic weapon from the black market that came from Obama/Holder fast & furious scandal (that nobody has been held accountable for).

I'm not going to try to change your mind re:guns. Hopefully, I can change your mind about this argument because this makes no sense, and I hear it all the time. First, it isn't logical to say "we shouldn't ban X bad thing because Y bad thing also exists." If I said "heroine should be legal since people can get drunk with alcohol anyway," I would hope you're not persuaded.

Second, none of your alternatives have the ease and effectiveness of rifles.
1. (Car) Bomb - It's been over twenty years since the worst bombing in US history. It wasn't a car bomb, it took a great deal of knowledge, and it required a ton of planning. Walking into a crowded club with a rifle is easier than months spent acquiring thousands of pounds of material. This is the deadliest of your list, and we still just don't see it very often in the United States. Further, I wasn't able to find/think of a US bombing other than OKC that killed more people than the guy in Orlando.
2. Knife - This is the funniest on your list. I don't want to meet the person capable of killing 49 people with a knife and injuring another 50.
3. Airplane - Either, (a) prohibitively expensive or (b) difficult to illegally obtain. We haven't had a major hijacking in the United States since 2001.
4. Car - Are you envisioning a person just hopping the curb and mowing people down? That's certainly possible. The Orlando guy would have had a really hard time finding 100 people he thought were gay just standing around outside in a big crowd.
5. Black market - difficult and prohibitively expensive.

Think what you want to about guns and the 2nd Amendment. Don't rely on this as a key argument. With a ban on assault rifles, it would become much harder to kill 50 innocent people.

[MoValley John]

Bath School disaster.

[MoValley John]

It doesn't take alot of effort to kill a lot of people without guns. I don't oppose gun regulations and restrictions, but I do know that thinking gun control will slow down terrorism is just silly.

[jdshock]

Bath School disaster.

There's a reason you have to cite an example from 90 years ago. That would not have worked in Orlando. The guy would not have been able to set up hundreds of pounds of explosives over several months in the club.

[MoValley John]

There's a reason you have to cite an example from 90 years ago. That would not have worked in Orlando. The guy would not have been able to set up hundreds of pounds of explosives over several months in the club.

10 minutes, thermite and a cigarette lighter.

[SB Shock]

Think what you want to about guns and the 2nd Amendment. Don't rely on this as a key argument. With a ban on assault rifles, it would become much harder to kill 50 innocent people.

Not in Chicago it isn't.

[SB Shock]

4. Car - Are you envisioning a person just hopping the curb and mowing people down? That's certainly possible. The Orlando guy would have had a really hard time finding 100 people he thought were gay just standing around outside in a big crowd.

Happens in Israel almost weekly, sometimes daily.

[SB Shock]

1. (Car) Bomb - It's been over twenty years since the worst bombing in US history. It wasn't a car bomb, it took a great deal of knowledge, and it required a ton of planning. Walking into a crowded club with a rifle is easier than months spent acquiring thousands of pounds of material. This is the deadliest of your list, and we still just don't see it very often in the United States. Further, I wasn't able to find/think of a US bombing other than OKC that killed more people than the guy in Orlando.

The fertilizer bomb doesn't take a lot of knowledge or resources. Anybody who ever served as 12B (combat engineer) is taught how build this improvised explosive (among others). Just because it hasn't happen doesn't mean it can't. It just means the enemy not that smart or motivated at this time.