Nearly naked man kills 4 in Waffle House shooting in Tennessee

When his AR-15 rifle either jammed or the clip was empty, the customer disarmed him in a scuffle.

And right here is why the high capacity magazines and rates of fire of assault weapons makes them worthy of being banned.

When an active shooter has to reload, it opens a window for relatively safe intervention.

When an active shooter's rate of fire is dependent on more than how quickly he can squeeze the trigger, there is less carnage downrange. Suppressive fire is labeled suppressive because there is so much lead flying downrange, anybody downrange keeps their heads down.

I must have missed the part in the 2nd Amendment that considers naked men (mentally unstable or high on drugs) as part of a well-regulated militia.

Another day, another senseless shooting in America.

More guns is the answer, right?

Am I reading this right? The police revoked his state firearms card last year and confiscated his weapons, handing them over to his father - who then returned them to his mad killer son.

@TJ When an active shooter has to reload, it opens a window for relatively safe intervention.

Well said. Good to see that a person WITHOUT a weapon was able to prevent further deaths. James Shaw, Jr. proved that heroes don't always need to be armed.

He was clearly schizophrenic. The guns should have been permanently removed, especially with the strict laws prevalent in Illinois.

http://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/waffle-house-suspect-had-previous-bizarre-interactions-with-police

A very sad story! Four (4) lives needlessly snuffed out. Kudos to the hero (and yeah, that man is a true hero) that stopped the shooter.

The issues in the U.S. are complex

First, related to guns; I firmly believe this type of weapon should not be sold to the general public (i.e. banned). One problem that is seldom part of the conversation is what should be done with the 10's of millions of semi automatic weapons currently in circulation. Should the government ask citizens to voluntarily surrender the weapons? Should the government seize these weapons from citizens? What about the millions and millions of unregistered weapons? Should the 4th Amendment be violated to find them? This makes this problem extremely complex and difficult to resolve. Related to guns the U.S. has created a problem and allowed the problem to persist for so long that I am not confident it can be resolved without taking some very extreme measures. Again, I would be totally in favor of legislation banning these weapons.

Second, related to the shooter; It is quite obvious the U.S. has some very severe mental health issues. Personally I believe this is part of the culture. Violence is shown (if not glorified) in video games and moves. Americans in the past 2 decades (or more) seem less and less capable of resolving differences peacefully or civilly. People on the extremes of issues seem much less willing to compromise than in the past.

... Reinking may have "mental issues."

Really? And thanks to his father for returning his guns to him.

I must have missed the part in the 2nd Amendment that considers naked men (mentally unstable or high on drugs) as part of a well-regulated militia.

See the SCOTUS Heller decision of 2008 which confirmed an individual’s right to keep guns without reference to militia membership.

Confusing paragraph. "State police in Illinois, where Reinking lived until last fall, revoked his state firearms card at the request of the FBI and the four guns were taken from him, authorities said. Nashville Police spokesman Don Aaron said the guns were returned to his father, who told authorities Sunday he had given the weapons to his son."

He had subsequently given them to his son, or originally given them to his son? Without this distinction the sentences go round and round and we are none the wiser.

The firearms were permanently removed. That means the "strict" law was enforced but the shooter somehow managed to get his hands on the weapons again anyway. Perhaps the law isn't as strict as gun nutters want to make out.

Personally I believe this is part of the culture. Violence is shown (if not glorified) in video games and moves. Americans in the past 2 decades (or more) seem less and less capable of resolving differences peacefully or civilly.

Tokyo-Engr, I agreed with your post until this part. Popularity of those violent video games and movies isn't limited to the US, and Americans are actually less violent than ever, despite perceptions we might have based on the news. Violent crime is at historic lows.

What is on the rise is mass shootings by a crazed gunmen. I think the cause of that is the a massive proliferation of increasingly destructive guns in the past few decades. There hasn't been an increase in violent people, just more guns and easier access to them.

@Tommy - Here is a bit more information. Apparently the guns were returned to the perpetrator's father based on an agreement that the father would not allow the perpetrator access.

https://apnews.com/adb9bf5dab8f41f79851bbc6c6dfe2ac/The-Latest:-Shooting-suspect-wanted-to-meet-with-Trump

"A sheriff in Illinois says Travis Reinking’s state firearms card was revoked last year by state police, but his guns were given to his father with the promise that they wouldn’t be shared with his son."

Funny, nobody is claiming the US is the only country with murder problems. Asserting that anybody is is a thinly veiled attempt to divert attention to the mass shootings and attempted mass shootings that are endemic to the US.

Thanks for reinforcing my point that the laws were enforced, Tokyo Eng.

I believe that Illinois has some procedural loophole where a relative of the listed owner of the firearms can take possession of the guns, as long as the relative has a valid Firearms Owner ID Card. It isn't clear in what state or under what circumstances the guns were returned, however.

Haven't they repealed the 2nd Amendment yet?

I think blame here can be properly allocated to both the idiot police, who gave the confiscated guns to the father, and the father who returned them. It's an obvious loophole in the law that needs fixing pronto.

As to the mystic power of the AR15, it's all crap. Nothing special about an AR that distinguishes it from any other semiautomatic weapon. Except that it is black and scary looking. If you want to have any impact on gun violence, then forget ALL long guns (rifles and shotguns)- they are only used in something like 3% of gun deaths. The focus needs to be on handguns and those who use them.

Another day in 'Merika! Of course, the gun-nutters here and over there would say, "Gosh darnit he could 'dun the same thing with Waffles if'n he wanted to! Guns ain't the problem!"

@Attila - I agree the father should be faulted for this terrible lack of good judgment. I do not think the police can be faulted as they take an oath to uphold the law. I do agree that the law should be changed so that the police can legally take the action you described.

why do people need 4 guns? i hate guns, but surely just one gun is enough to kill innocent people?

Mentally ill people shouldn't have access to guns. But the 2nd Amendment stands as the only way to prevent tyranny. A well-armed people forces government to think twice.

Mr Bum, there have always been lots of guns in the US. It isnt that guns are more available now than they were before, its that people are more inclined to do mass shootings for some reason.

Nobody was shooting up schools, shopping areas etc 40 years ago.

the 2nd Amendment stands as the only way to prevent tyranny.

As evidenced by all those first-world tyrannical countries around the planet.

...um, can someone remind me of which countries those are?

widespread civilian access to military-grade assault weapons.

The word 'military' is not necessary in the above statement. No civilians need access to guns period! The argument "I need a gun to protect myself from other people with guns" is just daft logic. The only people who actually 'need' access to guns are those in the military and only when on mission. Yes, there are circumstances where farmers need to control vermin and/or feral animals, but this is not every day. A person who lives in a city does not need a gun ever! Since 1968 when records started there has been 30-35,000+ gun related deaths in the US every year, 60% of which are suicides and 10% accidental deaths (usually children). This adds up to more Americans killed domestically than in both world wars. Yeah, Americans need guns for protection, but who is going to protect them from themselves? Another day, another mass-shooting in the US. Move on!

@theFritz

Here are a couple of perspectives on gun ownership in the U.S. I guess we could say you are 1/2 way right.

From Mother Jones: They indicate (in 2012) the percentage of people actually owning guns is going down.

https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/03/chart-day-gun-ownership-30-year-decline/

On the other hand the ratio of guns owned (that we know of) to people has been steeply increasing (2015 survey)

http://watchingamerica.com/WA/2015/10/17/more-weapons-than-people-in-the-united-states/

It is interesting. Fewer people owning guns (less than 1/2 the population actually) and more guns per capita.

This is an issue where Americans are deeply divided and for which there is no easy solution.

Another day of this continuing madness.

Mentally ill people with easy access to weapons and the many innocents suffering for the stupidity of a few.

Mr Bum, there have always been lots of guns in the US. It isnt that guns are more available now than they were before, its that people are more inclined to do mass shootings for some reason.

Nobody was shooting up schools, shopping areas etc 40 years ago.

Unless people are throwing away guns on a massive scale, logic says there are more guns available now than ever before because gun manufacturers keep making them. They're much more destructive and higher-capacity than ever before too, and for some reason gun laws are less strict than they used to be.

Why would you blame human inclinations toward violence when that has existed everywhere in the world for much longer? The difference between the US and the world, and between then and now is guns.

The only difference is that the random shooter is a crazy white guy, while endless violence in Chicago and other inner cities are committed mostly by minorities. This is a racist agenda.

Key word there is crazy. There's a difference between crazies and criminals, and different problems require different solutions.

But really, how could reducing the number of guns in circulation not have a positive effect on both?

Meth's a helluva drug !

knee-jerk reaction by the usual suspects; "Too many Guns!!!!"

Thoughtful observation by those with common sense;

A nearly naked gunman wearing only a green jacket

"He was clearly insane. Its a mental health issue"

usual subjects; ....silence....

knee-jerk reaction by the usual suspects; "Too many Guns!!!!"

Does ' Guns in the hands of people who should not have access to guns' sounds any better.

"He was clearly insane. Its a mental health issue"

usual subjects; ....silence....

You want silence? Ask a pro-gun lawmaker what they propose we do about mental health and how we pay for it.

Ask a pro-gun lawmaker what they propose we do about mental health and how we pay for it.

funny, I haven't heard of one yet who has complained about the costs of helping those suffering from mental illness.

Regarding gun nutters being okay with the cost of memtal health care, why do they constantly want to cut funding for it?

Particularly when it happens on a daily basis. Mass shootings are rare, so they make the news. However, trying to make good policy by over-focusing on rare events is not a solution.

Guns aren't going away. They are enshrined in law, plus they are very durable! Guns made a hundred years ago still work perfectly well. Semi-automatics have been around for a century as well.

Any serious look at the statistics of gun violence will show a decline in the past 30-40 years. The difference is that the media overplays them, "if it bleeds, it leads" don't ya know?

Firearm violence has dropped over the past three decades whilst mass shootings have risen.

funny, I haven't heard of one yet who has complained about the costs of helping those suffering from mental illness.

I haven't heard any proposals or actual solutions either.

I wonder how could the father look at himself in the mirror and live with the fact that his dumb idea was greatly at fault for what happened.

It's not cherry picking, the Supreme Court precedents and decisions are quite clear. the "well regulated militia" is seen as the general public well equipped with firearms. The intent of the law was to prevent any particular government from imposing itself monarchy style on the country. Given the left's constant plaintive cries of "Fascism!", I'm frankly surprised that MORE liberal leaning folks aren't arming themselves.

Like I said the logical thing to do is focus on the areas where the most violence and death occur. Suicides and handguns. Force the states to comply with federal regulations to report all felonies and dangerous offenders. A more proactive approach to mental health and better coordination among government agencies.

Assault rifles are nothing special, at least as most of the general public understands them. Civilian issue AR-15s are superficially similar to military weapons, but function totally differently. Banning them did nothing before.

Like I said the logical thing to do is focus on the areas where the most violence and death occur. Suicides and handguns. Force the states to comply with federal regulations to report all felonies and dangerous offenders. A more proactive approach to mental health and better coordination among government agencies.

Agreed. And ban assault weapons, but slightly stronger than has been previously done.

Assault rifles are nothing special, at least as most of the general public understands them. Civilian issue AR-15s are superficially similar to military weapons, but function totally differently.

Unless slightly modified. And even without that, they are far, far deadlier than bolt action, lever action, and semi-automatic rifles with a 3-5 round capacity.

Banning them did nothing before.

The evidence is more in favor of it having had an effect than not, but inconclusive. Accuracy is important.

Why do so many Europeans have such a concern for the US? The US is a free country and guns are a part of that freedom. Just because Europe has different values (by the way how's that Muslim integration going) should never equate to what or how we do things in the US. Sure, my government is run by a bunch of evil globalists and the weapons sellers, but the people are free to choose if the want a gun or not. History shows that Europe can turn on a dime and become volatile. At least we in the US can fight back if our government decides to attack their own citizens, which some would say is happening in Europe now with the influx of a culture that is opposite of European values.

As to the mystic power of the AR15, it's all crap. Nothing special about an AR that distinguishes it from any other semiautomatic weapon.

Trauma surgeons think otherwise. They are much more deadly and tear the body up. The only choice for the mass shooter.

Supreme Court precedents and decisions are quite clear.

The ones enforced today are recent and occurred after the gun lobby became a thing.

the "well regulated militia" is seen as the general public well equipped with firearms.

So they meant "equipped" but wrote "regulated"? Please...

The intent of the law was to prevent any particular government from imposing itself monarchy style on the country.

The Framers of the Constitution lived in a time of single-shot muskets. They wrote the law for single-shot muskets. They left an opening for stricter laws as weapons became more advanced and destructive, and that's what reasonable lawmakers did until the gun lobby became a thing.

The idea that the framers intended for your average schlub on the street to be capable of killing dozens in seconds goes against everything we know about them. The constitution is not really on your side on this issue. But that doesn't stop your side from invoking it every chance you get (another thing started by the gun lobby btw, look it up).

Mr. Bum; at the time of writing, "regulated" meant "equipped". The language has changed. Also it is true that technology has changed from that time. Taking your logic and applying it to the other Amendments...

The First Amendment would not apply to the internet, tv, movies, podcasts, etc. since they were not yet invented.

The Fourth Amendment would not apply to electronic documents or hard drives or sd cards, etc. since they were not yet invented.

you see where I am going here?

As for the destructive power of the AR-15, it fires a common bullet. No different than many other, non scary non assault rifles. Bullets don't magically get more powerful when fired from an AR.

Mass shootings are rare, so they make the news. However, trying to make good policy by over-focusing on rare events is not a solution.

Active shooter situations, the term now preferred by the FBI against 'mass shootings,' are rare but they still have in common the majority of perpetrators using their own legally owned weapons And of those most obviously haven fallen through the cracks of FBI, police intervention or restrictive background checks. Under the provision of having to prove they are not a member of a prohibited group (mentally ill, criminals, minors, those with a felony/domestic violence criminal record or at high risk of committing violent crime etc) most active shooters would have been denied the purchase of a firearm.

at the time of writing, "regulated" meant "equipped". The language has changed.

Um... No, it didn't.

you see where I am going here?

No, I don't, because you're kind of proving my point. The 1st and 4th are not absolute rights, and interpretations, adaptations, and limitations are made based on the current times, reason, and logic. There's no reason we can't do the same for the 2nd.

As for the destructive power of the AR-15, it fires a common bullet. No different than many other, non scary non assault rifles. Bullets don't magically get more powerful when fired from an AR.

How about we restrict all rapid-fire high-capacity weapons then? Stuff that's not necessary for self-protection or hunting.

At least we in the US can fight back if our government decides to attack their own citizens,

Psst, that'll never happen, and if it did we'd be crushed in days if not hours.

As for the destructive power of the AR-15, it fires a common bullet. No different than many other, non scary non assault rifles. Bullets don't magically get more powerful when fired from an AR.

WRONG

Routine handgun injuries leave entry and exit wounds and linear tracks through the victim’s body that are roughly the size of the bullet. If the bullet does not directly hit something crucial like the heart or the aorta, and the victim does not bleed to death before being transported to our care at the trauma center, chances are that we can save him. The bullets fired by an AR-15 are different: They travel at a higher velocity and are far more lethal than routine bullets fired from a handgun. The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body. A typical AR-15 bullet leaves the barrel traveling almost three times faster than—and imparting more than three times the energy of—a typical 9mm bullet from a handgun. An AR-15 rifle outfitted with a magazine with 50 rounds allows many more lethal bullets to be delivered quickly without reloading.

(Quote from HEATHER SHER a radiologist in a trauma center that treats gunshot wounds and a real authority on the topic.

Bullets don't magically get more powerful when fired from an AR.

No, they just get more powerful with a higher velocity. Medical Doctors in the ER would know.

The damage they cause is a function of the energy they impart as they pass through the body.

Phyisics 101. More velocity = more energy = more damage.

By the way, doctors have a great knowledge of science, including physics.

Nishikat; your comparison was apples and oranges, comparing handguns and the AR-15. Of course most long guns do more damage than handguns, that is not the issue. The AR is just a run of the mill rifle in terms of comparing it to OTHER RIFLES of the non "assault rifle" type. It is a 50 plus year old design and uses the same ammunition as many other rifles.

MR. Bum; NONE of the amendments are absolute. That is why there are limits to the second as well. Fully automatic weapons, silencers, etc. are all examples of such limits. You tried to make a technology related argument, which is of course unsupportable.

IMHO the uptick in mass shootings is due to mental health issues more than any other factor. More people on psychotropic drugs, fewer people institutionalized, more social discord and disconnection, weaker social/family ties and so on. That is why mass shootings seem more common in spite of the reality that gun deaths in general are consistently going down.

Are we talking about Japan?

The paranoid 2ANRA type who are afraid of the government and guns- yet choose to come to Japan which is a government that has all the guns. I understand being afraid of the government and wanting as much firepower you can afford. Fine! But then why come to Japan with that paranoia? It just shows that people in the NRA enjoy having guns, just to have guns, which is OK. But these people are suckers because NRA don't allow their members to bring guns to their conventions. I mean that is crazy since what if there was a crazy liberal there trying to shoot up the place?

nishikat - once again, you double down on your pointless false equivalency.

government decides to attack their own citizens

I responded to this (A paranoid 2ANRA American who comes to Japan- a country whose government has all the guns). Coming to Japan must be akin to suicide to those people

Nishikat; your comparison was apples and oranges, comparing handguns and the AR-15

I didn't. A Trauma doctor did. Why are you arguing with me? Of course if you want to believe a semi auto rifle is no more deadly than a musket from the revolutionary war....well....OK

zichi where'd you get the gun ownership stats from ?

Was that 27% of all living Americans or 27% out of those who are eligible to own a gun ?

@Attilathehungry

My argument wasn't "technology related" it was that the framers left some things vague for reasonable interpretations in the future. Like not letting untrained, unqualified individuals arm themselves with deadly rapid-fire high-capacity weapons. Though they did specifically insert the words "well-regulated" (which meant what it does today) and "milita."

If you're still unclear on what they meant, look up the Articles of Confederation on which the Constitution is based. In it, the focus is very clearly on militias, not individuals. (They even use the words "regulated" and "equipage" the same way we do today!)

every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage

Was that 27% of all living Americans or 27% out of those who are eligible to own a gun ?

zichi can confirm, but I think it refers to the entire population. The other common statistic is the percent of people who live in a household that has a gun. That number is currently around 42% (but some surveys show a lower number).

Another day in 'Merika! Of course, the gun-nutters here and over there would say, "Gosh darnit he could 'dun the same thing with Waffles if'n he wanted to! Guns ain't the problem!"

Playing the race card again? Funny, how the left scream get rid of guns is the only answer, which will never happen.

bass4funk: "Playing the race card again? Funny, how the left scream get rid of guns is the only answer, which will never happen."

What race is that? Who said anything about race at all -- only you automatically assuming it refers to any "race" beyond mere human beings, fella. Haha. Pretty telling, that. But, if you DO want to bring in race, which you are doing, and talking about how it's "funny, the left screaming...", why is it whenever there is a white person who commits a mass shooting, which is very often these days, you deflect, but if it's a muslim or ethnic minority all you do is harp about all Muslims or said ethnic minority? Oops!

Funny, how the left scream get rid of guns is the only answer, which will never happen.

Maybe it won't. But there must be something better than the current state of events. Some degree of gun control above what there is now, but less than taking the guns away altogether is an idea that can be both appreciated and hated by both sides - mutual dissatisfaction. Second best thing to mutual benefit.

Mr. Bum, you are indeed correct that the Framers were often deliberately vague. Some interpret the "well regulated militia..." phrase as being merely an example of why arms are needed, not the ONLY example. I think the Heller decision 10 years ago somewhat took this stance.

Strangerland; the current state of events, relatively speaking, is quite good. Statistics show that all gun deaths are at historic lows. Unfortunately, the media hypes and sensationalizes certain narratives which give the public an inaccurate picture of the actual situation. Kids in school, for example, are in perhaps the safest place in America. They are in far more danger during their walk/commute to school than actually in the classroom.

Statistics show that all gun deaths are at historic lows. Unfortunately, the media hypes and sensationalizes certain narratives which give the public an inaccurate picture of the actual situation.

I can buy this, insofar as I actually preach it regularly on this site. That said:

the current state of events, relatively speaking, is quite good.

Maybe relative to how things have been in America in the past. But if you want to use relative comparisons, the idea that even with the amount of gun deaths in the USA you could still think things are good, that is to those of us in the rest of the first world, relatively incomprehensible. We are used to living in places where school shootings almost never happen, or are really rare. And where we don't have stories of people walking into waffle houses and shooting up a bunch of people with an assault rifle.

I get it that things may be better than they used to be, but only through the numbness that comes with growing used to a problem could you think that they are good where they are at.

And as for things really being better, there never used to be school shootings like this back when I was a kid. It seems Columbine started a flood. Or were they just not reported before that?

Only four? Surprised this made the news.

(off-colored sarcastic remark)

Kids in school...

Are now having to have armed teachers. Who is going to pay for this? Metal detectors at Disney? Higher security costs. I have to pay for this? These semi auto rifles rip the body like no handgun can and trauma doctors have confirmed this.

phrase as being merely an example of why arms are needed

And that includes any military grade weaponry? (...shall not be infringed....)

Yet another failed psychiatric case. This seems to be the common denominator. They have had psychiatric "treatment," are in the middle of it and/or are on psychiatric drugs.

And as for things really being better, there never used to be school shootings like this back when I was a kid.

School shootings have increased over the last 40 years but of course it is still more of a cultural phenomenon than a real cause of death. Hardly any homicides are due to mass shootings, and schools are only a subset of a subset of that.

School shootings have increased over the last 40 years but of course it is still more of a cultural phenomenon than a real cause of death. Hardly any homicides are due to mass shootings, and schools are only a subset of a subset of that.

As someone who doesn't live in America, this line of thought reminds me of woman saying of her husband 'well, he only hits me sometimes, and not as much as he used to'.

and rates of fire of assault weapons

ALL semi-automatic guns, rifle or pistol, have essentially the same rate of fire. That being as fast as the shooter can pull the trigger.

I must have missed the part in the 2nd Amendment that considers naked men (mentally unstable or high on drugs) as part of a well-regulated militia.

Must have also missed the part of the article where it stated his right to own guns had been revoked.

Perhaps the law isn't as strict as gun nutters want to make out.

Or perhaps criminals don't follow the laws despite what seems to be belief of the ban-the-guns nutters.

Mentally ill people shouldn't have access to guns. But the 2nd Amendment stands as the only way to prevent tyranny.

No, the 2nd Amendment does not stand in the way of banning mentally ill peoples access to guns. In fact it is illegal for a mentally ill person to buy or own guns. There are issues about how mentally ill one has to be before their gun rights are revoked. But in this case his rights WERE revoked.

But in this case his rights WERE revoked.

They were revoked due to a trespass charge in another state (or DC), not mental illness that we know. And the guns were not retired, they were essentially transferred to another part of the house.

The Framers of the Constitution lived in a time of single-shot muskets. They wrote the law for single-shot muskets.*

Cherry picked from the 1st Amendment

“Congress shall make no law……..abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;”

The Framers lived in a time of oratory, hand written correspondence and the printed word. There was no radio, no television, no cinema and no internet. Are the American people’s protections afforded by the 1st amendment only valid for the communication technology available in the18th century? Is Congress free to pass laws censoring the broadcast media because it didn’t exist in the 1700s?

Cherry picked from the 4th Amendment

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,"

Are the “effects” specified in the amendment limited to what “effects” an 18th century American would have? Would it be “reasonable” for the government to search your hard-drive, your phone or your car, without a warrant, because they didn’t exist the 1780s?

All weapons do not have the same rate of fire.

The logic that criminals don't follow the law so stricter firearms laws are pointless dictates no laws. After all, laws won't stop criminals and we aren't having issues with non-criminals. Or, are you saying non-criminals need laws?

Weak sauce from the gun nutters

... Reinking may have mental issues.

“In June 2017, police records state Reinking threatened someone with an AR-15 while wearing a pink dress. After threatening the man, Reinking drove to a public pool and dove in before exposing himself to others at the pool, according to the reports.”

”May”? Perhaps this hesitancy to call a spade a spade - and take action - is the product of this new era when mental illness in its many manifestations seems to be celebrated.

Mr. Bum, you are indeed correct that the Framers were often deliberately vague. Some interpret the "well regulated militia..." phrase as being merely an example of why arms are needed, not the ONLY example.

Many parts are vague, but including the words "well-regulated militia" is an example of it being very specific. They were OK with arming people (with muskets) in the context of a well regulated and trained militia, NOT just any moron on the street.

I think the Heller decision 10 years ago somewhat took this stance.

It sure did. But a stance that ignores specifically included words is cherry picking in my book. And a 10 year old interpretation is hardly something that's "enshrined" in our constitution.

Stop using the 2nd amendment and the founding fathers as a defense. Like I said, they aren't on your side. If you want to keep guns around and you're honest, you're going to have to come up with a better excuse.

All weapons do not have the same rate of fire.

But all semi-automatics do.

and trained militia

And where are these words from?

And where are these words from?

My bad, it was "disciplined militia." They come from the Articles of Confederation on which the Constitution is based. If your going for an honest interpretation of what the 2nd Amendment really means, that's probably where you'd look.

Another mass murder by a white man, and its crickets from Bone Spurs. Had it been a person of color or a Muslim, trump would be tweeting like crazy.

So much misinformation here. So much misinformation from the same people who I have tried to clarify what they were misunderstanding before. People just refuse to listen. Is it because they prefer to be dramatic over being correct? I mean, if you are going to argue for or against something, wouldn't you prefer to actually be educated on the topic? I'm all for debating the issues, but I prefer to do it with someone who actually understands what they are debating.

For instance, can someone explain to me how semiautomatic weapons could possibly have different rates of fire? Unless by different rates of fire, you mean a different finger pulling the trigger? An AR-15 is not an automatic weapon. It fires one bullet per trigger pull. Your finger is what is setting the rate of fire, not the gun.

By all means, let's discuss options to lower gun violence, but let's be rational and informed about it.

The pounds of pressure required to squeeze the trigger determines the rate of fire.

So does the capacity of the weapon.

The higher the capacity of the weapon, the more rounds it can send downrange per minute.

The lighter the trigger pull, the quicker the rounds are sent downrange.

@tommy jones

you could not be more wrong on either count.

*’For a third hybrid class of weapons, common in handguns and rifles, known as a semi-automatic firearm, the rate of fire is primarily governed by the ability of the operator to actively pull the trigger. No other factors significantly contribute to the rate of fire.’*

Damn. I hate posting from my phone, it screws everything up. That last bit is supposed to be a quote in italics from here:

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

A firearm’s rate of fire is determined mainly by the “action” of the gun (the mechanism by which a bullet is moved into the chamber, where it is ready to fire)

http://www.parentsagainstgunviolence.com/refining-the-terms-and-criteria-of-a-new-assault-weapons-ban/#more-93

. . .

Each type/model of firearm has a little different speed than every other, due to design differences, and each individual firearm has a little different speed than every other due to the variations in parts made to the same requirements, and due to differences in lubrication, wear, etc.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/firerate.html

. . .

Another factor influencing rate of fire is the supply of ammunition. 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_fire

Agreed that posting from phones isn't the best. This has been enjoyable, ex-tanker. I appreciate the lack of ad hominem attacks as it allowed us to focus on the substance. Thanks.

For instance, can someone explain to me how semiautomatic weapons could possibly have different rates of fire? 

Maybe they are thinking about what happened in Las Vegas with the bump stocks.

Another factor influencing rate of fire is the supply of ammunition.

No. The supply of ammunition does not affect the rate of fire. That would be like saying the number of candies you have affects the calories per candy. A machine gun with 1 round still has the same rate of fire as the same machine gun with 100 rounds.

Rate of fire is a characteristic of a gun that barring damage or modification to the gun remains the same always and forever. The amount of ammunition only effects how long that rate of fire can be maintained.

A firearm’s rate of fire is determined mainly by the “action” of the gun (the mechanism by which a bullet is moved into the chamber, where it is ready to fire)

True, but incomplete. In a semi-automatic weapon the speed of the "action" is so much greater than the speed at which an unaided human can pull the trigger that the rate of fire for all semi-automatics is for all practical purposes the same.

And cherry picking quotes out of context isn't helpful. From your 2nd citation:

"However, these differences are all small in comparison to the time it takes for a person to pull a trigger, and especially in comparison to the time it takes for a person to aim at a target."

And your 1st citation makes that statement before going on to explain the different rates of fire from single action revolvers, pump action guns, semi-automatics and full automatics. It wasn't a statement about differences between semi-automatics.

@Tommy Jones

Agreed that posting from phones isn't the best. This has been enjoyable, ex-tanker. I appreciate the lack of ad hominem attacks as it allowed us to focus on the substance. Thanks.

Hey, that is a surprise. We may never agree on the subject, but I also appreciate the respectful reply. I really do respect all opinions on all sides, but the feeling usually isn't mutual.

I would honestly recommend avoiding gun-control advocate sites when looking for purely technical information. While they did seem to make an honest attempt, there was still some incorrect info at the link you provided. I also think you might be combining a few different terms when you are thinking 'rate of fire', such as 'cyclic rate' and 'effective rate'. They're similar, but definitely not the same.

But like Mike O'brien pointed out, those differences in parts, wear, etc., have an insignificant effect on the actual rate of fire of a semi-auto weapon.

Ref to the above comments, its like ground hog day again, until the guns laws are change ( for the better) we will be writing the same comments on these news threads for some time to come, I would like to know if his farther has committed a crime by giving his son his firearms back, if he has, could he be charged with some sort of accessory charge?

I would like to know if his farther has committed a crime by giving his son his firearms back, if he has, could he be charged with some sort of accessory charge?

His father might have committed a crime. It depends on when and where he gave him the guns back. His son was never found to be mentally ill, so he was allowed by federal law to have guns. But in Illinois a state license is required to have guns and his had been revoked (the reason why the guns were confiscated by the police). So if his father gave him the guns after he moved out of Illinois then he probably didn't break any laws.

But even if he didn't break any laws the people shot could still sue him for civil liability. Whether they would win is hard to know.

I'm fairly certain that giving someone a firearm across state lines still requires a transfer through an FFL dealer, so even if he was allowed to own a gun outside of Illinois, his father still would have broken federal law by giving him the guns back after he left. Nothing in the news has said anything about legally transferring the guns back to his son, only that he admitted to giving them back to him after he was strictly told not to. I think dad is going be seeing the same view of the prison yard as his son, and rightly so.

his father still would have broken federal law by giving him the guns back after he left.

Again, it depends. If he shipped them across state lines without going through a FFL dealer then yes. But he may have shipped them properly and the news reports just didn't say so (because the reporters probably have no idea what the laws are). Or his son, after changing residence, could have driven to Illinois and picked the guns up and driven back. As a non-resident he wouldn't have needed a license to have the guns, even in Illinois.