School shooting Florida

[Planigale]

If that's what he meant, my need still stands. It doesn't need to be a bad guy with a gun if I'm hiking in the woods alone. It's always uncomfortable to pass or catch up to guys hiking on the same trail when you are a woman alone. I'm a firm believer of #notallmen. But my freedom is a tad restricted if I hike alone. Or at least my sense of security since I've done it sans a weapon anyway.

Nope, I have a real live example. I've driven a lot alone around the US. Parking my little cab-high camper Datsun or Toyota (I've had both) to sleep has felt safe and unsafe depending on where I stopped. I've always felt less safe in campgrounds near or in cities.

And here, we agree. It's an incredibly ignorant argument to claim you need your guns for the reason the writers of the 2nd Amendment likely had in mind.

I have seen 'Deliverance', what makes you think that a lone man does not feel the need for a gun (or a bow*)?

You may be more likely to shoot yourself and end up critically injured in the wilderness by carrying a loaded gun than you are to ever need it for self defence (I accept that in some areas a rifle is needed for defence against e.g. bears). one observation that has been made is that in the US most people have an exaggerated idea of their risk of an incident in which a gun would be needed for self defence. Even in the US I believe many LEOs complete a career without ever having needed to open fire.

*As a teenage girl in England I was able to carry around a laminate bow with arrows with no apparent restrictions, whilst my rate of fire may not have compared with a pistol I guess my accuracy and stopping power was equivalent. Of course concealed carry was not an option.

Rather like the second amendment it was compulsory (until recently - 1960) for Englishmen to practice archery to maintain an armed militia to defend the nation from the French.

 

[smartcooky]

Rather like the second amendment it was compulsory (until recently - 1960) for Englishmen to practice archery to maintain an armed militia to defend the nation from the French.

The Archery Mandate was repealed during the reign of Queen Victoria (20 June 1837 – 22 January 1901)

Do you mean 1860?


ETA: Found it. The Archery Mandate was repealed in 1863 by the Statute Law Revision Act c.125

 

[3point14]

It's the assumption that rights should exist whether they are recognized or not, that justifies the use of force to compel their adoption.

I've added the bolded bit.

 

[3point14]

If that's what he meant, my need still stands. It doesn't need to be a bad guy with a gun if I'm hiking in the woods alone. It's always uncomfortable to pass or catch up to guys hiking on the same trail when you are a woman alone. I'm a firm believer of #notallmen. But my freedom is a tad restricted if I hike alone. Or at least my sense of security since I've done it sans a weapon anyway.

Nope, I have a real live example. I've driven a lot alone around the US. Parking my little cab-high camper Datsun or Toyota (I've had both) to sleep has felt safe and unsafe depending on where I stopped. I've always felt less safe in campgrounds near or in cities.

And here, we agree. It's an incredibly ignorant argument to claim you need your guns for the reason the writers of the 2nd Amendment likely had in mind.

How accurate are your feelings regarding the level of risk you're at. From where have you garnered the information that makes you feel unsafe? Do you think your feeling of insecurity matches reality?

 

[IanS]

Sorry, but lots and lots of people just enjoy target shooting for the sake of it. I haven't been bird hunting in over a decade, but I still like shooting skeet or 5 stand on occasion. Neither of which has anything at all to do with training to kill (except birds I suppose).

Well, it's a technical or fundamental point really, but just think about it for a moment (or more than a moment if at first sight you disagree) - what is really, truly, the benefit and purpose of shooting at targets where the goal is to practice until you become more & more accurate in hitting the dead-centre of your aim? The purpose is to make you a more accurate shooter. But to what end purpose? The end purpose is not just to keep practicing for the sake of practicing itself ... no, all practice is a means to an end … the end purpose is that you will eventually become a very accurate shot if you ever need to defend yourself against other people.

You may no want to think about it that way. But actually that is the real/entire purpose of practicing to shoot a deadly weapon accurately.

The same thing applies to shooting skeets ... the whole point is to make you more accurate with a deadly weapon ... the skeets and the paper targets are just practice methods to help you become more accurate and more efficient in shooting at whatever the guns can shoot at ... and overwhelmingly the main thing that those guns are all intended to shoot at is people. That may be different if the guns are specifically only effective against paper targets or clay skeets ... but afaik that is not the case; that is not the sort of largely ineffective guns you are using ... e.g., afaik most people who shoot at targets and skeets in the US, are using guns that are completely lethal if fired at people ... and even if they do use less powerful guns for the target/skeet shooting, they also do own those more powerful deadly weapons for which their practice on targets/skeets is making them more deadly when they believe they need to shoot at people, or at least that's what gun owners believe ...

... that's surely why military personnel practice with targets on a firing range. That's why the sort of armed guard who was at the Florida school was, according to much of the discussion here and elsewhere, supposed to have trained as an efficient marksman with a gun.

It may be true that you and others who like shooting at targets and skeets would never normally dream of firing a gun at other people. But that does not change the fact that practicing to improve our shooting accuracy against targets and skeets is at it's heart/basis intended as way to make you more effective if you ever need to use guns for their actual intended purpose of stopping dead a human or animal attacker (deadly wild animal - bear, tiger, etc.) … and all the guns we are talking about here are most definitely designed to be absoluetely deadly when fired at other people.

 

[MikeG]

Well, it's a technical or fundamental point really, but just think about it for a moment (or more than a moment if at first sight you disagree) - what is really, truly, the benefit and purpose of shooting at targets where the goal is to practice until you become more & more accurate in hitting the dead-centre of your aim? The purpose is to make you a more accurate shooter. But to what end purpose? The end purpose is not just to keep practicing for the sake of practicing itself ...

It perfectly well can be. People over here play darts, or do archery. You are falling into the trap, again, of overstating your case, under-understanding the case of the gun owners.

no, all practice is a means to an end …

Lifelong sportsman here, and never touched a gun in my life. No, it isn't. It really isn't. You are simply flat out wrong on this. Target shooting can be practised such that you are better at target shooting.

the end purpose is that you will eventually become a very accurate shot if you ever need to defend yourself against other people.

It really isn't up to you to determine what other people's motivations are.

You may no want to think about it that way. But actually that is the real/entire purpose of practicing to shoot a deadly weapon accurately.

See above.

The same thing applies to shooting skeets ... the whole point is to make you more accurate with a deadly weapon ... the skeets and the paper targets are just practice methods to help you become more accurate and more efficient in shooting at whatever the guns can shoot at ... and overwhelmingly the main thing that those guns are all intended to shoot at is people.

You're making your argument look pretty damn silly now. There are thousand and thousands of Brits whose only experience of shooting is with a shotgun, firing at clay pigeons. It is a very popular sport, and people who do it are only in it for the intrinsic satisfaction of that sport. It's a bloody Olympic sport, for goodness sake. To say that particiapnts are only practising for their real, hidden, purpose is stupid. Really, really stupid.

That may be different if the guns are specifically only effective against paper targets or clay skeets ... but afaik that is not the case; that is not the sort of largely ineffective guns you are using ... e.g., afaik most people who shoot at targets and skeets in the US, are using guns that are completely lethal if fired at people ...

Do you really think that you are achieving anything by having a pop at shotgun owners?

and even if they do use less powerful guns for the target/skeet shooting, they also do own those more powerful deadly weapons

Guilt by association, hey. Ian, you've no argument. Stop. Just stop. This is really doing the gun control argument no favours at all. This is an ill-informed childish rant.

It may be true that you and others who like shooting at targets and skeets would never normally dream of firing a gun at other people. But that does not change the fact that practicing to improve our shooting accuracy against targets and skeets is at it's heart/basis intended as way to make you more effective if you ever need to use guns for their actual intended purpose of stopping dead a human or animal attacker (deadly wild animal - bear, tiger, etc.) … and all the guns we are talking about here are most definitely designed to be absoluetely deadly when fired at other people.

Honest to goodness, you should please go off and do some reading. This is ridiculous stuff.

 

[IanS]

There really isn't. A 'right' is something that enough people believe is a right at the time. There are no such things as born human rights, there are only enumerated rights, gained by force of numbers or force of arms.

"Rights" are situational, not a fundamental part of being a human.

Of course there is really no such things as fundamental "rights" for anyone.

The only thing that makes anything a "right" for people to have, is if the country's laws stipulate that thing as lawful (you are said to have a "right" to that thing in law).

At present in the US people have a legal right to apply for gunownership. Within the current laws they can own all sorts of guns and bullets, and it's currently lawful for them to stockpile numerous guns and masses of bullets in their own homes. In some states, afaik, it's also lawful for people to carry their loaded guns on the public streets.

Those are at present, in law, peoples "rights" in the US.

But each time there is another mass killing, millions of people in the US and around the world, do question whether those current US laws or "rights" are acceptable any more.

In any country, laws can be changed. In fact in every country, laws are changed constantly, week-in-week-out, every year. The question here is whether the US needs to change those rights laws to make it much harder for people to own and keep all manner of loaded guns freely available in their own homes, from where any of those gun owners can at any moment decide to take their guns onto the streets and start murdering all sorts of innocent unsuspecting people ...

... and unfortunately that is not just a technical or hypothetical scenario, because at present the undeniable fact about that "right" is that every year in the US far, FAR, too many gun owners do exactly that and take their weapons onto the streets to murder thousands of people.

 

[IanS]

It perfectly well can be. People over here play darts, or do archery. You are falling into the trap, again, of overstating your case, under-understanding the case of the gun owners.



Lifelong sportsman here, and never touched a gun in my life. No, it isn't. It really isn't. You are simply flat out wrong on this. Target shooting can be practised such that you are better at target shooting.



It really isn't up to you to determine what other people's motivations are.



See above.



You're making your argument look pretty damn silly now. There are thousand and thousands of Brits whose only experience of shooting is with a shotgun, firing at clay pigeons. It is a very popular sport, and people who do it are only in it for the intrinsic satisfaction of that sport. It's a bloody Olympic sport, for goodness sake. To say that particiapnts are only practising for their real, hidden, purpose is stupid. Really, really stupid.



Do you really think that you are achieving anything by having a pop at shotgun owners?



Guilt by association, hey. Ian, you've no argument. Stop. Just stop. This is really doing the gun control argument no favours at all. This is an ill-informed childish rant.



Honest to goodness, you should please go off and do some reading. This is ridiculous stuff.

OK, I understand all of that. And I could easily say all the same things that you have just said.

All I am pointing out is that the fundamental purpose of shooting guns at targets, is to make yourself a better more accurate shooter with weapons that are actually intended for killing people in wars (or in armed defence situations, such as with armed guards on various buildings, or in an armed police force).

It's really undeniable that, that is why armed forces and armed guards practice shooting at targets.

It's a technical point. Though one which has an important underlying fact of purpose.

But I'm not saying that people must be stopped from shooting guns at target or skeets (and I said that way back in the first few posts I made in this thread). However, there is of course a very obvious problem if people keep those guns (for target shooting) as loaded weapons in their own home! And that should be obvious to everyone here …. because its undeniably true that if/when you keep loaded guns like that in your home, then you are always just a very short step away from you or anyone else taking those guns and killing someone.

 

[erlando]

Well, it's a technical or fundamental point really, but just think about it for a moment (or more than a moment if at first sight you disagree) - what is really, truly, the benefit and purpose of shooting at targets where the goal is to practice until you become more & more accurate in hitting the dead-centre of your aim? The purpose is to make you a more accurate shooter. But to what end purpose? The end purpose is not just to keep practicing for the sake of practicing itself ... no, all practice is a means to an end … the end purpose is that you will eventually become a very accurate shot if you ever need to defend yourself against other people.

I'm sorry, that's just not true. You can absolutely practice a skill for no other reason than the satisfaction of getting better at that skill. That goes for target shooting, juggling, spinning a ball on your finger - anything really.

Saying that practicing target shooting has the goal of getting better at shooting people is an absolute non sequitor. I was a member of a shooting club and enjoyed the process of getting better at shooting - controlling my breath, focusing, controlling the trigger motion, doing things the absolute same way each and every time. Not once was "self defence" on my mind.

 

[MikeG]

Storing guns safely in the home is a separate issue. It works pretty well here. A gun safe, locked, with ammunition stored separately, and guns stored unloaded. Advocate for something sensible rather than determine that all shotgun owners are secret mass-killers just practising for the day they get their chance.

Making yourself better at shooting at targets is utterly harmless, and has no connection with the murder of schoolkids. I go back to be archery and darts analogy. Take a pop at the important stuff, not at the entirely innocent.

 

[IanS]

I'm sorry, that's just not true. You can absolutely practice a skill for no other reason than the satisfaction of getting better at that skill. That goes for target shooting, juggling, spinning a ball on your finger - anything really.

Saying that practicing target shooting has the goal of getting better at shooting people is an absolute non sequitor. I was a member of a shooting club and enjoyed the process of getting better at shooting - controlling my breath, focusing, controlling the trigger motion, doing things the absolute same way each and every time. Not once was "self defence" on my mind.

Sure, it's not on your mind, and that is not the reason why you personally are practicing shooting at targets. But the fundamental reason for anyone ever using targets in the first place (think about why that ever started being done in the first place ... why did people ever originally practice firing any weapons at targets?), is fundamentally to become more proficient with what are actually deadly weapons.

But the point is not to say that anyone should be stopped from target shooting. It's just to point out that if the guns that you use even for target shooting, are kept loaded in your own home, as they are in the US (and probably elsewhere too), then you certainly do pose a risk to the general public because of that easy access which you have to lethal weapons ... even if you are only ever intending to use them for target shooting.

But please, lets not get too "hung up" on this, or too scathing of what any of us say about it ... the only reason I bother to give those explanations is because another poster replied to me a few pages back saying something about target shooting being completely harmless or however he put it ... and all that I am saying in response to that is "actually, shooting at targets was originally, and still is fundementally, a way of practicing to be more accurate with deadly weapons" ... and in the present context of US public shootings, the problem with even target shooting is that people are allowed to keep those same guns and bullets in their own homes ... and it's precisely that situation of keeping loaded guns in private homes (even if the owner only ever wants to engage in target shooting) which is the issue that leads to those guns being taken onto the streets to get people killed.

 

[IanS]

Storing guns safely in the home is a separate issue. It works pretty well here. A gun safe, locked, with ammunition stored separately, and guns stored unloaded. Advocate for something sensible rather than determine that all shotgun owners are secret mass-killers just practising for the day they get their chance.

Making yourself better at shooting at targets is utterly harmless, and has no connection with the murder of schoolkids. I go back to be archery and darts analogy. Take a pop at the important stuff, not at the entirely innocent.

Mike - please, lets not argue about this any further, because it's a bit of a sidetrack. BUT - it is certainly not as you just said "a separate issue" if those target shooting guns are kept loaded in peoples homes! ... and that really is an unarguable fact.

Put it another way - target shooting itself may be (or seem) entirely harmless. But the guns you are using for it are very far from harmless ... and when those guns are kept in your own home, then at any moment you or anyone else can very easliy take those same guns and shoot people instead of targets!

 

[3point14]

Sure, it's not on your mind, and that is not the reason why you personally are practicing shooting at targets. But the fundamental reason for anyone ever using targets in the first place (think about why that ever started being done in the first place ... why did people ever originally practice firing any weapons at targets?), is fundamentally to become more proficient with what are actually deadly weapons.

The fundamental purpose of running, on the African plains, was to catch lunch. Do you think today's modern runners are training to catch lunch?

 

[MikeG]

Mike - please, lets not argue about this any further, because it's a bit of a sidetrack. BUT - it is certainly not as you just said "a separate issue" if those target shooting guns are kept loaded in peoples homes! ... and that really is an unarguable fact.

Put it another way - target shooting itself may be (or seem) entirely harmless. But the guns you are using for it are very far from harmless ... and when those guns are kept in your own home, then at any moment you or anyone else can very easliy take those same guns and shoot people instead of targets!

I'll stop when you stop Ian.

Target practise is entirely harmless (not seems to be), and is often, if not generally, done for its own sake (ie to be better at target practise). This is entirely a separate matter from the safe storage of guns. We agree on that, but you, for some reason, twisted it up with target practise, as well as twisting shotguns and clay pigeons in with your confused narrative. If you want to stop chasing down this rabbit hole, I am content to stop pointing out your errors. I'd much rather be discussing the stupidity of having semi-automatic weapons in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I'll stop when you stop Ian.

Target practise is entirely harmless (not seems to be)

Depends on the definition of harmless. It does have some societal harm as accidents do happen and people shoot themselves and others by accident in this entirely harmless target practice.

 

[ProBonoShill]

"One of the nation’s largest sports retailers, Dick’s Sporting Goods, said Wednesday morning it was immediately ending sales of all assault-style rifles in its stores.

The retailer also said that it would no longer sell high-capacity magazines and that it would not sell any gun to anyone under 21 years of age, regardless of local laws."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/...r-will-stop-selling-assault-style-rifles.html

Good for them.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

"One of the nation’s largest sports retailers, Dick’s Sporting Goods, said Wednesday morning it was immediately ending sales of all assault-style rifles in its stores.

The retailer also said that it would no longer sell high-capacity magazines and that it would not sell any gun to anyone under 21 years of age, regardless of local laws."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/...r-will-stop-selling-assault-style-rifles.html

Good for them.

Odds of a legal challenge?

But I concur, good for them.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Depends on the definition of harmless. It does have some societal harm as accidents do happen and people shoot themselves and others by accident in this entirely harmless target practice.

MikeG and IanS are both UK posters, I'm not aware of any serious accidents at UK target ranges (excluding MoD ones) in recent years and very little target shooting (accept air guns) occurs off range. Not disputing your point, but I think that's the context to consider in this case as both of them are in favour of more regulation (though to different extents).

 

[ponderingturtle]

MikeG and IanS are both UK posters, I'm not aware of any serious accidents at UK target ranges (excluding MoD ones) in recent years and very little target shooting (accept air guns) occurs off range. Not disputing your point, but I think that's the context to consider in this case as both of them are in favour of more regulation (though to different extents).

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/british-shooting-champion-survives-being-blasted-in-the-stomach-by-friend-a3474086.html

"Mr Oldring, who was a member of the England and Great Britain shooting teams and competed in European championships and the Commonwealth Games, said it felt “just like being hit with a sledgehammer” when the accident happened in a hide on a shooting range in Hampshire. "

Of course accidents happen in the UK too.

 

[MikeG]

Depends on the definition of harmless.......

In the same sense that toasting toast is harmless, and running a bath is harmless. Some fool somewhere will get it wrong.