• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nessie said:
It would be interesting to see a type of gun, shots fired, people hit study of mass shootings to see how much of an effect the type of gun has. I get the theory of a gun with lots of bullets and no need to constantly reload, allows more kills than a single shot, regular reload weapon. But what difference does it really make?

Hungerford - 2 x semi auto rifles and a handgun - 16 deaths, 15 injured
Dunblane - 4 x handguns - 16 deaths, 15 injured
Cumbria - 1 x shotgun, 1 x bolt action rifle - 12 deaths, 11 injured
Plymouth - 1 x shotgun - 5 death, 2 injured.

Another factor is movement. Dunblane was all inside one school, Hungerford and Plymouth were over shorter distances, but Cumbria was over a long distance as that shooter drove around.

Another factor is the shooter. The least known mass shooting in the UK was Monkseaton in 1989, when a male took his father's shotgun and shot at 17 people, killing 1 and injuring 14.

I am not convinced the type of gun is a major factor in how many die in mass shootings.
Click to expand...

You have just listed all the reasons given over the years against the move from single shot to magazine loading then to semi auto rifles for the military.

If what you say is true then why don't the military still use single shot or bolt action rifles?

That you can't see why having a 30 round magazine, semi auto rifle isn't an aid to killing lots of people quickly is mind boggling.
 
SuburbanTurkey said:
It's obviously a political problem, or at least a political question.

Considering how laughably ineffective the liberal opposition is in this country, I doubt there's much reason to expect a solution. The dems have been asleep at the wheel for decades.

ETA: Dems leadership just successfully circled the wagons around a Texas anti-abortion incumbent to fend off a progressive challenger. Coincidentally, Rep. Cuellar publicly refused to refund NRA donations in response to prior mass shootings.
Click to expand...

SuburbanTurkey said:
Democrat leadership just made a heroic 11th hour effort to protect an anti-abortion Texas Dem. incumbent with an A-rating from the NRA. he won by 117 votes.

The Republicans are publicly bathing in the blood of children and Dem leadership still thinks squashing progressives is more important than having principles about anything. Nothing is going to happen.

Dems probably couldn't get their own members to agree about a gun control bill, much less have the competency to go toe-to-toe with the Republicans on the issue.
Click to expand...



 
SuburbanTurkey said:
I likewise doubt it would make much difference for these kinds of spree shootings. Target selection seems to make more of a difference than anything.

All the victims from this recent shooting were in the same classroom. I really doubt the outcome would have been different had he used different guns.
Click to expand...

I thought I read he encountered security on the way in and then barricaded the classroom. Wouldn’t it have made a difference if he had just been armed with a bolt action shotgun?

For a start, he might not have felt as confident about carrying out a school shooting.
 
lionking said:
Yes I agree it’s a huge effort, but in Australia we had massive semi automatic gun ownership in Australia, but after a number of well known massacres in Australia, culminating with Port Arthur, gun control happened. We haven’t had any since then.

Do gun deaths still happen here? Yes of course. But we don’t have pathetic loners tooling up and killing many people any more.
Click to expand...

Did you have a massive anti-gun control "but mah freeeeedoms!" public and political party fighting against this sensible act?
 
angrysoba said:
I thought I read he encountered security on the way in and then barricaded the classroom. Wouldn’t it have made a difference if he had just been armed with a bolt action shotgun?

For a start, he might not have felt as confident about carrying out a school shooting.
Click to expand...

Read between the lines and the cops ran away. Somehow there was an exchange of gunfire outside, then nothing while cops waited for backup and this guy killed without interference inside.

All this money we piss away on cops and when it's their time to risk their necks to actually serve their community they're all pissing their pants waiting for swat to show up. Meanwhile teachers are blocking bullets with their bodies.
 
Last edited:
SuburbanTurkey said:
Read between the lines and the cops ran away. Somehow there was an exchange of gunfire outside, then nothing while cops waited for backup and this guy killed without interference inside.

All this money we piss away on cops and when it's their time to risk their necks they're all pissing their pants waiting for swat to show up. Meanwhile teachers are blocking bullets with their bodies.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That may well be true, but again, if he had been carrying a shotgun rather than semi-automatic weapons he may have felt less sure about carrying out the attack and the security would not have pissed their pants as much.

Of course nothing is guaranteed, and yes it is possible to have atrocities with as much as a knife as happened here in Japan by a guy with a knife in a school in Ikeda.

That said, if school shootings cannot be ended in the US there must be ways of reducing them.
 
arayder said:
Some gun control advocates lack the understanding of how AR-15s (and fire arms in general) work to the degree that they can't figure out that there's no need to ban the weapon. What they want could be achieved by banning high cap mags.

This gets society around the positively horrific scenario in which the cops are sent out to confiscate bubba's rifle. Talk about blood in the streets!

In this scenario mags beyond ten rounds would be illegal. if you have one and turn it in you get voucher for a five or ten round mag. If you don't turn it in the cops are going to assume you smashed it to bits with a sledge hammer.

But the cops ain't searching your house because they saw an old picture of you at a 3 gun match with a 30 round mag.

If you show up in public or at the range with a high cap mag you are subject to it being confiscated and you getting fined.

Just saying. . .
Click to expand...

Captain_Swoop said:
so people just hide them under the bed. or practice until they can change mags real quick.
Click to expand...

Back during the Clinton years gun magazines used to publish articles about how to bury guns in the event of government confiscation. I suspect some folks would bury their high cap mags as opposed to putting them under the bed. . .but it's the same idea. . . hide them.

Under the above plan a shooter would be nuts to take the high cap mags to a range or any place public since he/she wouldn't know who might be there and be willing to rat the shooter out. Even having them around where family or friends could see them wouldn't be smart since today's wife might be tomorrow's ex from hell and your so called old friend might harbor a grudge.

The bury-them-behind-the-barn plan fits with the scenario in which high cap mags are only putting into use during periods of civil unrest or when the owner is revolting against the government.

Or shooting up a school?

Hey, I didn't say the plan was perfect.

---------
Dope Clock II: It's been 345 days since Bobby Menard announced plans to create "Artists Valley". So far all he has done is lie through his teeth.
 
Some people would bury their guns. Most woouldn't. New owners wouldn't. Even instant ban and confiscation of every gun police can get hands on short of house search .. would take decades to really get rid of most of the guns.
But that's exactly why US should start somewhere.
 
For the gun confiscation people I have a question.

Gun owners are not creating negative externalities. While some gun owners create harm, it doesn't fall under the category that owning a gun inflicts a cost (like any level of pollution).

What theory of government power do you think applies in this situation?
 
lionking said:
What I find interesting is that a very conservative Australian Prime Minister John Howard, who I otherwise hated, brought gun control to Australia. He even wore bullet proof vests when standing up to gun owners at rallies.

So called progressive Biden will do nothing.
Click to expand...

Biden isn't a progressive which is why we see a lot of animosity against him by some ISF members.

You're repeating the same mistake as another poster. Biden HAS done what he can so far through XO's. I already posted a year old article listing what he has done as far as he is legally able to do and how the GOP is fighting him on them. Here's another:
President Joe Biden put on a modest White House ceremony Thursday to announce a half-dozen executive actions to combat what he called an “epidemic and an international embarrassment” of gun violence in America.

But he said much more is needed. And while Biden had proposed the most ambitious gun-control agenda of any modern presidential candidate, his moves underscored his limited power to act alone on guns with difficult politics impeding legislative action on Capitol Hill.

Biden’s new steps include a move to crack down on “ghost guns,” homemade firearms that lack serial numbers used to trace them and are often purchased without a background check. He’s also moving to tighten regulations on pistol-stabilizing braces like the one used in Boulder, Colorado, in a shooting last month that left 10 dead.
Click to expand...

“Some of the other big-ticket items are legislative,” said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “And that’s going to be very difficult.”

Biden mentioned a formidable list of priorities he’d like to see Congress tackle, including passing the Violence Against Women Act, eliminating lawsuit exemptions for gun manufacturers and banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. He also called on the Senate to take up House-passed measures to close background check loopholes.

But with an evenly-divided Senate — and any gun control legislation requiring 60 votes to pass — Democrats would have to keep every member of their narrow majority on board while somehow adding 10 Republicans.
Click to expand...

The House passed two bills in March largely along party lines that would expand and strengthen background checks for gun sales and transfers, a move that has broad public support. But most Republicans argue that strengthened checks could take guns away from law-abiding gun owners.
Click to expand...
https://apnews.com/article/joe-bide...gun-violence-7ddb30681ca3abbf1a0faa286e3df7b2
 
Delphic Oracle said:
Ladies and gentleman: the moderate perspective.
Click to expand...

All I can say if the Dems adapt a "We don't need no stinking moderates" attitude it will not end well for them.
I am one of those who can easily see the moderates in both parties getting together and froming a party of their own if they are driven from both parties.
 
Dr.Sid said:
Some people would bury their guns. Most woouldn't. New owners wouldn't. Even instant ban and confiscation of every gun police can get hands on short of house search .. would take decades to really get rid of most of the guns.
But that's exactly why US should start somewhere.
Click to expand...

My experience is that the mags will break or wear out before the guns do. So the recycle time/life span on the mags is shorter.

Between old high cap mags breaking, mag buy backs, confiscations (from people stupid enough to take them out in public), owners smashing their high cap mags to bits, or burying them and then either dying or forgetting which tree they are buried near. . . in a few years there might be a lot less high cap mags.

Just saying. . .

---------
Dope Clock II: It's been 345 days since Bobby Menard announced plans to create "Artists Valley". So far all he has done is lie through his teeth.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
3d printers.

Click to expand...

So what? Honestly - what the hell does that matter?

Not everybody has a 3D printer, or wants to make the effort of using the printer to make the magazine, or is willing to make the magazine for friends and acquaintances (especially if said magazine were illegal to make or own).

This is a frustrating thing in these arguments. If pro-gun advocates can find any way at all to work around a proposed law at all - even if, as in your example, the workaround would be illegal - then the proposed law must be utterly and 10,000% worthless.

There is value in making it more difficult to do these things, even if "making it more difficult" does not equal "make it impossible".
 
Last edited:
"If we make a law against this then people will just break it" isn't the killer argument for having no laws that some people think it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom