The Glamorization of Murder

[MajesticMelody]

I woke up today and was so saddened to hear that one of my favorite YouTube/Voice singers Christina Grimmie was shot dead by a psycho after her opening concert. Can't imagine how her brother feels was standing right next to her and tried to save her. Ughh things like this. We have to stop glamorizing murder and gore so much. Watching all these extremely violent acts engraves in the minds, and people want to go out and copy those things. Or like just this past week, I had a vividly horrible dream that I was tied up and being cut all over with a razor blade and couldn't get away and I had just watched something violent before bed. Anyhow RIIP‬ to Christina and to everyone who had to lose their life to violence.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

We have to stop glamorizing murder and gore so much. Watching all these extremely violent acts engraves in the minds, and people want to go out and copy those things.

There's no evidence of that. In fact recent studies between aggressiveness and violent media imagery and video games have shown no link at all.

Source

The research, led by psychologist Christopher Ferguson and published in the Journal of Communication, not only found that there was no link between violent media and behaviour but also questioned the methodology of previous studies suggesting the two were related.

Source

Study finds no evidence violent video games make children aggressive

Source

Long-term research into homicide rates and depictions of violence in video games and movies shows no significant relationship

 

[MajesticMelody]

But we have become desensitized in general to it all. The same reason I can watch The Walking Dead passively, but when my Mom watches she cringes and is far more disturbed than I am. Her generation was not exposed to all of this. Anything we are exposed to in life has an effect on our mindset. Also I can feel it in myself as an empath when I watch these things. I have images that burst into my thoughts from videos I've clicked on in the past. For example I watched a woman get her head cut off over a year ago yet somehow the thoughts rush in randomly while I'm driving or in class. And... lol You can't tell me that after watching the Purge, you didn't feel like setting something on fire. lol It may just be me and I'm a pansy, I can't even play or watch Call of Duty or anything of that nature because my mind can't separate that I'm in a fictional game. I freak out and I find it absolutely terrifying.

 

[Worship Jaclyn]

Everyone is different. I am extremely sensitive to violence in games or on tv as well but that doesn't say anything about society, it says something about me. I do believe we are desensitized, I just don't think it's because of what we see in fiction. Saying that murder happens because someone saw it on tv is such an oversimplification. I wish that was the case! It'd be amazing if we could ban television shows and video games and see a decrease in violence but it just isn't that easy.

 

[fandango]

Why not tackle the real problem and do something about the ease any crazy guy can get his hands on a gun. If the guy had no way of getting a gun in the first place she wouldn't be dead and he'd just be left with his crazy thoughts and no way to act on them.

I know Americans love their guns but isn't thousands of peoples lives more important?

 

[MajesticMelody]

I hate the gun topic. I don't think citizens should have them, but since their are idiots everywhere with them, now we have to have them to protect ourselves from the psychos with them. And yes I guess I just am one of those people who is overly sensitive to gore and things. But, I just don't find it natural that we glamorize it so much in these recent decades. Violence and shooting have been on the rise, and I cant help but notice that the gore and violence in the media and music and television has been rising alongside with it. Though I am aware of our innate violent behavior as humans, we also copy things we see on television often. Beyonce sang about Red Lobster in a song and their sales increase the next week. We are highly influenced by it all.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Why not tackle the real problem and do something about the ease any crazy guy can get his hands on a gun. If the guy had no way of getting a gun in the first place she wouldn't be dead and he'd just be left with his crazy thoughts and no way to act on them.

I know Americans love their guns but isn't thousands of peoples lives more important?

I think most people just say that because it's easy to repeat that mantra without actually thinking about it. The truth is there's many countries in the world that disprove a correlation between ease of attaining firearms and murder rates in those countries.

(murder rate is per 100,000 in examples below)

Venezuela - 62.0 murder rate. Before 2012 a permit was needed to purchase. Then law enacted banning private ownership. Murder rate rose after that ban.

Jamaica - 36.1 murder rate. Firearms and ammunition ownership regulated since 1967. Requires licenses. Less than 3% of population own guns.

Belize - 34.4 murder rate. Very restrictive. Most calibers illegal. $500 permit per weapon. Yearly license fee to own. Firearm license required to buy ammunition. 9mm only allowed pistol caliber. No rifles allowed.

Brazil - 24.6 murder rate. Minimum age to own a gun is 25. Illegal to carry gun outside of home. Background checks. Registration of firearms. Safety training course required for firearm license. Government keeps record of all owners. Limited quantity of ammunition allowed in possession.

Costa Rica - 10.0 murder rate. Citizens may own guns. But to do so you have to be a permanent resident, fill out a written application, show documentation how weapon was acquired, show identification documents, present weapon to Dept. of Arms and Explosives for inspection, fingerprints taken, present a psychological exam certification (after you hire a psychologist to administer said exam of course), and a certification from Costa Rican criminal archives division showing no criminal record. In other words, legal, but they make it a pain in the ass to get one.

British Virgin Islands (UK) - 8.4 murder rate. Technically gun ownership allowed with permit by law. Reality is, haha, no. Total number or registered firearms there is 48 (2 rifles, 28 shotguns, and 18 handguns). It's the UK.
.
.
.
.
.
Just gonna cut to the chase here... If you look at total murder rate by country, the United States is the 112th one on the list. Clear down at a murder rate of 3.8. This is from the country where gun ownership is defined as a fundamental right by law and the world thinks everyone owns one. Which is also another fallacy by the way.


In fact according to a study by two Harvard professors, gun policies in Europe show evidence that counters the correlation between gun ownership and violence. Several countries there that maintain high rates of gun ownership possess lower murder rates than other developed nations in which gun ownership is more restricted. Banning guns will not solve the problem of violence or murder.

"Murder rates are determined by socio-economic and cultural factors," not availability of guns.

 

[Guy]

I think most people just say that because it's easy to repeat that mantra without actually thinking about it. The truth is there's many countries in the world that disprove a correlation between ease of attaining firearms and murder rates in those countries.

(murder rate is per 100,000 in examples below)

Venezuela - 62.0 murder rate. Before 2012 a permit was needed to purchase. Then law enacted banning private ownership. Murder rate rose after that ban.

Jamaica - 36.1 murder rate. Firearms and ammunition ownership regulated since 1967. Requires licenses. Less than 3% of population own guns.

Belize - 34.4 murder rate. Very restrictive. Most calibers illegal. $500 permit per weapon. Yearly license fee to own. Firearm license required to buy ammunition. 9mm only allowed pistol caliber. No rifles allowed.

Brazil - 24.6 murder rate. Minimum age to own a gun is 25. Illegal to carry gun outside of home. Background checks. Registration of firearms. Safety training course required for firearm license. Government keeps record of all owners. Limited quantity of ammunition allowed in possession.

Costa Rica - 10.0 murder rate. Citizens may own guns. But to do so you have to be a permanent resident, fill out a written application, show documentation how weapon was acquired, show identification documents, present weapon to Dept. of Arms and Explosives for inspection, fingerprints taken, present a psychological exam certification (after you hire a psychologist to administer said exam of course), and a certification from Costa Rican criminal archives division showing no criminal record. In other words, legal, but they make it a pain in the ass to get one.

British Virgin Islands (UK) - 8.4 murder rate. Technically gun ownership allowed with permit by law. Reality is, haha, no. Total number or registered firearms there is 48 (2 rifles, 28 shotguns, and 18 handguns). It's the UK.
.
.
.
.
.
Just gonna cut to the chase here... If you look at total murder rate by country, the United States is the 112th one on the list. Clear down at a murder rate of 3.8. This is from the country where gun ownership is defined as a fundamental right by law and the world thinks everyone owns one. Which is also another fallacy by the way.


In fact according to a study by two Harvard professors, gun policies in Europe show evidence that counters the correlation between gun ownership and violence. Several countries there that maintain high rates of gun ownership possess lower murder rates than other developed nations in which gun ownership is more restricted. Banning guns will not solve the problem of violence or murder.

"Murder rates are determined by socio-economic and cultural factors," not availability of guns.

But the Untied States is different culturally from those countries. Plus those countries are heavens for drug cartels.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

But the Untied States is different culturally than those countries.

Exactly my point. Cultural factors (and socio-economic factors) determine murder rates, not availability of guns. Thank you for reiterating my point.

 

[Guy]

Exactly my point. Cultural factors (and socio-economic factors) determine murder rates, not availability of guns. Thank you for reiterating my point.

But the Untied States doesn't have the huge fields of cocaine that region has. Poverty isn't the only reason why the murder rate is high there. Cocaine is highly addictive to people of all classes. Even if those countries were not poor, that drug related violence would still be there. You can't compare the U.S to those countries.

 

[fandango]

Those are very culturally different places to the US and tough to draw parallels.

It's very simple if no one has a gun then no one gets shot, there's no academic study or fact twisting required there. Sure somebody could still kill somone if they really wanted to but no one ever went on a knife rampage through a school, cinema, office block (pick whichever mass shooting you want).

Owning a slave was also seen as a fundamental right at one point in time so that argument doesn't really wash either. Your constitution has been amended before and it can be amended again if enough people wanted to. Its not like its some magical unquestionable document that must be obeyed and can never be wrong or updated to move with the times.

 

[Sevrin]

Let's compare apples with apples.

Among OECD countries, the murder rate U.S.A is second only to Mexico, with only Estonia coming close.

 

[MajesticMelody]

Those are very culturally different places to the US and tough to draw parallels.

Your constitution has been amended before and it can be amended again if enough people wanted to. Its not like its some magical unquestionable document that must be obeyed and can never be wrong or updated to move with the times.[/QUOTE

I can't agree with this more. People here in America act as though change is impossible.

 

[JerryBoBerry]

It's very simple if no one has a gun then no one gets shot, there's no academic study or fact twisting required there. Sure somebody could still kill somone if they really wanted to but no one ever went on a knife rampage through a school, cinema, office block (pick whichever mass shooting you want).

And if no one owns cars no one would get run over by a Honda. Your logic doesn't apply. If there were no guns people would still get 'murdered.'

The whole 'knife' rampage thing makes me laugh every time I hear it because it shows people really can't think about it without injecting their bias into the situation. Yes, there have been rampages, without firearms involved, that still managed mass killings . If people can't get a gun they can still kill a lot of people.

A simple case in point is the Brussels airport and metro station attacks. 32 people dead, around 300 injured. No gunfire, so those deaths shouldn't have happened by your logic. But out here in the real world if someone wants to kill a lot of people and they don't have access to guns, they simply make a bomb. Israel/Palestinian bombings have been going on for decades.

This understanding is why people say guns don't kill people, people do. It's not that they are trying to defend their constitutional rights. They just have a better understanding of how the real world works. People have been killing people long before firearms were ever invented. To use the logic of taking them all away will stop that is just hilarious.

Let's compare apples with apples.

Among OECD countries, the murder rate U.S.A is second only to Mexico, with only Estonia coming close.

Here's the thing, you didn't compare apples to apples. You compared a single variety of apple to all apples. You chose a narrowed down list of countries arbitrarily designed to make America appear toward the top of the list. Also it has nothing to do with my point. That was, countries with restrictive gun laws and less guns in the hands of their citizens can still have higher murder rates than the US. And the opposite is true. Countries with abundance of firearms can have lower murder rates. It's not about the firearms, it's about the cultural and socio-economic factors of the country. Take away guns and those factors remain the same, you'll still have the murder rates. Here's a more inclusive list of murder rates.

 

[Ambers Troll]

You can't do statistics and really understand them very well from lists.... there is a better way now.

Christina Grimmie's murder came from a suicidal, obsessed fan. The gun made it easier to kill her and himself. You could say that he was the wrong person to be allowed to own a firearm, but up until that point he decided to act he may have been a responsible gun-owner, with few signs of mental incapacity.
My view on the ownership of any weapon (any weapon), if you want to own one, you are probably the wrong person or have the potential to be.

 

[JoleneBrody]

As a gun owner and an American, I'm in full support of reform.

 

[Bocefish]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems the media and other outfits are finally learning to place the spotlight on the victims instead of their over-glamorization of the shooter(s) posting their pictures constantly.

As usual, the initial emotional knee jerk reactions to a mass shooting is to blame the inanimate object, the evil black gun. That makes about as much sense to me as banning pressure cookers. Terrorists will always find a way and the unstable mentally ill have no business having access to weapons. Somebody that's been investigated by the FBI THREE times for terrorism needs to have some sort of asterisk in the national data base for weapon purchases. Local law enforcement wasn't even notified about this guy. There needs to be way more agency communication there!

As far as so-called assault weapons go...

http://www.nssf.org/msr/facts.cfm

Modern Sporting Rifle Facts

Download a
Pocket Fact Card

The modern sporting rifle, based on the AR-15 platform, is widely misunderstood. Why? Confusion exists because while these rifles may cosmetically look like military rifles, they do not function the same way. Also, groups wanting to ban these rifles have for years purposely or through ignorance spread misinformation about them to aid their cause.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation asks you to be an informed gun owner and to use the following facts to correct misconceptions about these rifles. Remember, that if AR-15-style modern sporting rifles are banned, your favorite traditional-looking hunting or target shooting semi-automatic firearm could be banned, too.

• AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle.
  
  
• The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for ArmaLite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."
  
  
• AR-15-style rifles are NOT "assault weapons" or "assault rifles." An assault rifle is fully automatic -- a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.
  
  
• If someone calls an AR-15-style rifle an "assault weapon," he or she either supports banning these firearms or does not understand their function and sporting use, or both. Please correct them. "Assault weapon" is a political term created by California anti-gun legislators to ban some semi-automatic rifles there in the 1980s.
  
  
• AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.
  
  
• Versions of modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchasers.
  
  
• Since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern sporting rifle simply follows that tradition.
  
  
• These rifles' accuracy, reliability, ruggedness and versatility serve target shooters and hunters well. They are true all-weather firearms.
  
  
• Chamberings include .22, .223 (5.56 x 45mm), 6.8 SPC, .308, .450 Bushmaster and about a dozen others. Upper receivers for pistol calibers such as 9 mm, .40, and .45 are available. There are even .410 shotgun versions.
  
  
• These rifles are used for many different types of hunting, from varmint to big game. And they're used for target shooting in the national matches.
  
  
• AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.
  
  
• The AR-15 platform is modular. Owners like being able to affix different "uppers" (the barrel and chamber) to the "lower" (the grip, stock).
  
  
• And, they are a lot of fun to shoot!
  

 

[mynameisbob84]

As far as so-called assault weapons go...

Whether we call it an "assault weapon" or a unicorn, it's a gun that can fire up to 100 bullets as quickly as a shooter can pull a trigger 100 times. We're not talking about a pistol that carries 6 bullets and is carried for protection or even a hunting rifle. Guns don't kill people, people do - and guns like this one make it easier to kill 50 people in a matter of minutes than it should ever, ever be. Killing 50 people shouldn't be as easy as legally purchasing a utensil whose sole function is to kill as many things as possible as quickly as possible.

 

[Guy]

Are AK-47s legal in most states? I know they are in Wisconsin.

 

[Gen]

Maybe it's just me, but it seems the media and other outfits are finally learning to place the spotlight on the victims instead of their over-glamorization of the shooter(s) posting their pictures constantly.

This! I've seen a lot more emphasis on sharing the photos and stories of the victims. It's really nice to see.

 

[fandango]

And if no one owns cars no one would get run over by a Honda. Your logic doesn't apply. If there were no guns people would still get 'murdered.'

The purpose of a Honda is not to kill people whereas a gun is is being used for its intended purpose, two totally different situations. The logic totally applies. I didnt say "if no one has a gun no one gets killed" I said "if no one has a gun no one gets shot" Of course people can still find ways to kill each other but why make it as easy as possible.

The whole 'knife' rampage thing makes me laugh every time I hear it because it shows people really can't think about it without injecting their bias into the situation. Yes, there have been rampages, without firearms involved, that still managed mass killings . If people can't get a gun they can still kill a lot of people.

A simple case in point is the Brussels airport and metro station attacks. 32 people dead, around 300 injured. No gunfire, so those deaths shouldn't have happened by your logic. But out here in the real world if someone wants to kill a lot of people and they don't have access to guns, they simply make a bomb. Israel/Palestinian bombings have been going on for decades.

Bombings are incredibly rare when compared to shootings because the entry barriers are so high. Crazy Joe can't just walk into his local bomb store then go out and blow up a nightclub. It takes a great deal more time, effort and funding to learn how to make one, get all the necessary parts and explosives all without getting found out and stopped whereas a guy already on the FBI watchlist can still go ahead and buy a gun no questions asked.

Maybe bombs should just be legalized too? After all bombs dont kill people right. If a responsible bomb owner only puts them at the edge of his garden to keep out invaders then surely he shouldn't have his bombs taken away because someone else uses their bombs for nefarious purposes.

 

[MajesticMelody]

It's crazy how a day after I posted the Grimmie murder by gun, 49 more in the same same city are murdered by the same weapon. In general, it is easier to commit the crime when I can go to my local gun shop and plan a mass murder. I may sound like a crazy radical, but I think we need a national gun sweep on all deadly assault rifles or whatever the hell the class of weapon is that allows an everyday citizen to spray dead a whole nightclub. Yes, people will still buy them illegally, but we still should try and regulate and enforce stricter gun laws. Just like we did after 9/11 with airports. We can't stop everything but we can at least place barriers and make it less easy to access a murder in your pocket. It's getting ridiculous at this point how many deaths by GUN occur daily.

 

[MajesticMelody]

This! I've seen a lot more emphasis on sharing the photos and stories of the victims. It's really nice to see.

True! I had to search a few minutes to find pictures of the murderers. They used to get full cover stories and spreads, movies, and documentaries written about them. They don't deserve that light.

 

[Bocefish]

OK, It's apparent there are a lot of people unfamiliar with different types of firearms and their capabilities. So, instead of me trying to convey in words... please check out the following video that shows how just about any pistol in the hands of a semi-proficient person along with a little planning can accomplish the same body count as that evil black rifle in the night club.

 

[mutantdonut]

→→→Click here for article←←←


.

 

[mynameisbob84]

OK, It's apparent there are a lot of people unfamiliar with different types of firearms and their capabilities. So, instead of me trying to convey in words... please check out the following video that shows how just about any pistol in the hands of a semi-proficient person along with a little planning can accomplish the same body count as that evil black rifle in the night club.

This isn't an argument against banning larger magazines or guns like the AR-15, so much as it's an argument to ban guns full stop. But in the hands of the average idiot (which as far as we're aware, the Orlando shooter was, he had no formal training, wasn't ex-army or police) a 100 round magazine is likely to do more damage than a 6 round magazine. Furthermore, are there not restrictions in place on how many magazines you can buy at a time? Surely you can't walk in to a store and buy 20 magazines at a time.

 

[LuckySmiles]

Somebody that's been investigated by the FBI THREE times for terrorism needs to have some sort of asterisk in the national data base for weapon purchases. Local law enforcement wasn't even notified about this guy. There needs to be way more agency communication there!

Agree. This is very disturbing.

But in the hands of the average idiot (which as far as we're aware, the Orlando shooter was, he had no formal training, wasn't ex-army or police)

He worked for an armed private security company, G4S. They tend to hire veterans, national guard members, those in school in law enforcement etc, but essentially anyone can work for them that passes all the background checks. You're required to have a gun on you for the job, it's not like mall security. They are often contracted out by places that don't have enough law enforcement in their area. Including, but not limited to, government contracts.

Kind of fucked to say the least. If that many people missed the signs, that many people need to lose their jobs.

A retired police officer, and local father of one of the victims was on the news last night saying how he wished someone else was there armed, to stop him. That's a common sentiment, but I was surprised to see it on the news. Whether or not you agree with the dad, people look at tragedies all different ways and there's no blanket one size fits all answer.

 

[SaffronBurke]

He worked for an armed private security company, G4S. They tend to hire veterans, national guard members, those in school in law enforcement etc, but essentially anyone can work for them that passes all the background checks. You're required to have a gun on you for the job, it's not like mall security. They are often contracted out by places that don't have enough law enforcement in their area. Including, but not limited to, government contracts.

They're contracted at my vanilla job - the gentlemen who works when I'm leaving in the evening is a retired lawyer, and we actually looked up assault rifles tonight because he was curious about how easy to get/cheap they are - and the answer is very easy and under $1000. That's too easy and cheap. Your everyday civilian shouldn't have access to a gun that is designed with the specific purpose of killing lots of people in a small amount of time.

Are AK-47s legal in most states? I know they are in Wisconsin.

They're legal in Iowa, and I used to have a friend who had one and would go out in the woods and use it to cut down trees, simply because he could. He's precisely the sort of person who doesn't need that kind of gun.





Mass shootings happen in places that are typically gun-free for a reason - they think that they won't have any resistance. However, you can incapacitate a shooter without a gun of your own if you act quickly - as another sex worker pointed out by posting this search on Twitter. I'm making a habit of studying the video that's the first result as well as the article about doing it with a knife, because I'm someone who's calm in emergencies, and I'd rather know how to do it and never need it, than need it and not know.,

 

[Bocefish]

Whether we call it an "assault weapon" or a unicorn, it's a gun that can fire up to 100 bullets as quickly as a shooter can pull a trigger 100 times. We're not talking about a pistol that carries 6 bullets and is carried for protection or even a hunting rifle. Guns don't kill people, people do - and guns like this one make it easier to kill 50 people in a matter of minutes than it should ever, ever be. Killing 50 people shouldn't be as easy as legally purchasing a utensil whose sole function is to kill as many things as possible as quickly as possible.

As the above videos show, even a 6 shot revolver can be reloaded very quickly with a little practice, so basically any pistol could accomplish the same thing as the evil black rifle used in Orlando.

Your everyday civilian shouldn't have access to a gun that is designed with the specific purpose of killing lots of people in a small amount of time.

Myth: Assault weapons have only one purpose, to kill large numbers of people

Fact: Of the millions of these firearms currently in civilian hands, they are routinely used for:

• Small game hunting (especially hog hunting in thick southern brush)
• Sports competitions such as “three gun shoots”
• Self-defense, both at home and during civil disorder situations such as the Rodney King riots in L.A. and Hurricane Katrina

Myth: Nobody needs an assault weapon

Fact: Their light weight and durability make them suitable for many types of hunting and are especially favored for wild boar hunting.

Fact: Their lighter recoil combined with light weight make them the preferred rifle with people of small stature or limited strength.

Fact: There are many reasons people prefer to use these firearms:

• They are easy to operate
• They are very reliable in outdoor conditions (backpacking, hunting, etc.)
• They are accurate
• They are good for recreational and competitive target shooting
• They have value in many self-defense situations

Millions of law abiding citizens use them for various reasons other than killing people. Last time I checked, less than 1% of all firearm deaths are attributed to the evil black rifle.

The ironic thing is every time the dems try to ban the evil black guns, sales skyrocket! Even IF they somehow manage to implement some sort of assault weapons ban, manufacturers just re-tool the same weapons to avoid it.

Even Obama and Hillary know an all out gun ban would be political suicide. It's totally understandable people feel the need to immediately do something so these horrors never happen again, but more gun control laws will not help. Congress IS currently working to pass mental health legislation and other laws to ensure people on the terrorist watch list cannot legally purchase firearms.

.02

 

[JerryBoBerry]

Whether we call it an "assault weapon" or a unicorn, it's a gun that can fire up to 100 bullets as quickly as a shooter can pull a trigger 100 times. We're not talking about a pistol that carries 6 bullets and is carried for protection or even a hunting rifle.

This is why people who aren't knowledgeable about guns, or come from countries not in a gun culture, should stay out of gun debates. They generally don't have a clue what they are talking about. You can fire just as many bullets, and just as fast, from a pistol that carries 6 bullets as a so called assault weapon. (even using that name shows lack of knowledge on the subject).

Magazine size, reloading times, pistols, rifles, AR-15's... a dedicated person can kill the same number of people with any of them.

This video is primarily showing why magazine size limitations are incredibly stupid. But notice at one point they demonstrate how to fire 30 rounds from a 6 shot revolver in 18.8 seconds. And if you pay attention you'll notice the 6 shot revolvers fired faster than a semi automatic with higher magazine capacity. They also show a 100+ year old designed pistol shooting 21 rounds in under 10 seconds. And that was with 3 reloads. Assault weapons weren't close to being invented yet.