Cont: Today's Mass Shooting (2)

Status
Not open for further replies.
smartcooky said:
Nice goalpost move.

I agree that semi-automatics should be banned, but that is NOT what was being discussed.

If you can't understand that your reply to Bob001 completely ******* ignored what was he actually saying, then you are beyond help, and I have no intention of holding your hand and walking you though it in baby steps.
Click to expand...

What he was saying may be of interest to other gun nuts but they make no real difference.
How one bullet can do more damage to you when it kills you than another bullet is of interest only to gun nuts.
Sorry, I forgot, maybe surviving being shot by one bullet over another bullet is hardly consolation or reason not to ban them.
 
cmikes said:
It's not surprising that any kind of restrictions on rifles, scary looking assault or otherwise, would have no effect on crime statistics. After all, according to the FBI crime statistics, more people are beaten to death with blunt instruments or bare hands than are killed with rifles every year. Maybe we need to ban hammers.
Click to expand...
Oh look at those cherries being picked. :rolleyes:
 
Captain_Swoop said:
What he was saying may be of interest to other gun nuts but they make no real difference.
How one bullet can do more damage to you when it kills you than another bullet is of interest only to gun nuts.
Sorry, I forgot, maybe surviving being shot by one bullet over another bullet is hardly consolation or reason not to ban them.
Click to expand...


These mass shootings would be a lot more tolerable if the shooters would use rounds that weren't as powerful. We should probably just ban certain rounds. Problem solved.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Why do civilians need pistols at all?
Why exempt revolvers?
Click to expand...

In parts of the United States, it is valid for self defense against bears. Obviously this would not affect the majority of Americans, but it still is a valid use.
 
jimbob said:
In parts of the United States, it is valid for self defense against bears. Obviously this would not affect the majority of Americans, but it still is a valid use.
Click to expand...


I have to ask, where did you come up with the "self defense against bears" example?

I know that some do carry a large caliber pistol as a back up when hunting in bear country. But that is is quite the outlier.

I live on a property where bears sometimes rummage through the trash. But I don't arm myself with a pistol, typically.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
What he was saying may be of interest to other gun nuts but they make no real difference.
Click to expand...

Well you see, IF you were paying attention, you would have realized that you were mistaken. Bob001 was talking about ballistics - if you weren't interested in what he was talking about Bob00 then its best to just STFU and don't reply at all. But rather than admit you misread his post, you just pretend the subject was different one. That is a very dishonest way to debate.

Oh, and FYI, while you are calling for bans of ALL semi-automatics in the USA, (including .22 cal rimfire), they are in fact not even banned in YOUR country!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Rifles

"Rifles
UK law defines a "rifle" as a rifled firearm with a barrel longer than 30 cm (12 in), and a total length longer than 60 cm (24 in). Single-shot, bolt-action, Martini-action, lever-action (also called under-lever action) and revolver rifles and carbines are permitted, with certificate, in any calibre. Self-loading (also known as semi-automatic) or pump-action rifles are only permitted in .22 rimfire calibre. "

Although I haven't looked it up, I'm guessing its probably for the same reason that they are not banned here.... pest control!
 
smartcooky said:
Well you see, IF you were paying attention, you would have realized that you were mistaken. Bob001 was talking about ballistics - if you weren't interested in what he was talking about Bob00 then its best to just STFU and don't reply at all. But rather than admit you misread his post, you just pretend the subject was different one. That is a very dishonest way to debate.

Oh, and FYI, while you are calling for bans of ALL semi-automatics in the USA, (including .22 cal rimfire), they are in fact not even banned in YOUR country!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearms_regulation_in_the_United_Kingdom#Rifles

"Rifles
UK law defines a "rifle" as a rifled firearm with a barrel longer than 30 cm (12 in), and a total length longer than 60 cm (24 in). Single-shot, bolt-action, Martini-action, lever-action (also called under-lever action) and revolver rifles and carbines are permitted, with certificate, in any calibre. Self-loading (also known as semi-automatic) or pump-action rifles are only permitted in .22 rimfire calibre. "

Although I haven't looked it up, I'm guessing its probably for the same reason that they are not banned here.... pest control!
Click to expand...

I didn't misread his post. Ballistics are irrelevant to banning semi-auto weapons.

They are a distraction, a way of showing off knowledge that has no bearing on the problem.

I used to shoot quite a lot, I had a ruger.22 semi auto but my main interest was in historic service rifle shooting, I owned a couple of Lee Enfields of different types.
I used to hand load .303 and 7.62 for competition and I now think .22 semi autos should be banned in the UK.
What is the need for a semi-auto rifle of any kind in civilian hands?
What 'pests' are there in the UK that need a semi-auto rifle?
 
Last edited:
It does seem like a kind of smokescreen or diversion (and I know some folk going into the nitty gritty are on the side of more regulation), since there are bans in many other countries with the same common law legal framework as the USA then it obviously is not beyond the wit of legislators to deal with all these irrelevant to the goal niggles.

How to get beyond the mess the USA finds itself is always going to be difficult and entirely unsatisfactory for decades, but and yes it is trite - a journey starts with the first step.
 
In case you're wondering what lessons cops have learned in the aftermath of the Uvalde mass shooting:

Conflicting stories are circulating after a man hopped a fence and broke into a Seattle elementary school. These competing accounts have law enforcement and parents in the Sand Point neighborhood at odds. Seattle Police claim the principal at Sand Point Elementary did not cooperate with officers, and so they had no choice but to let the intruder go. Parents say the principal bravely defended their children, not law enforcement.
Click to expand...

A Seattle school went into lockdown after a deranged man hopped the fence and started chasing students around. Teachers and other school officials managed to deal with the erratically behaving man and direct him away from students. When the cops finally showed up, they initially refused to get out their car and confront the intruder, and tried to claim they couldn't detain, much less arrest, a school intruder unless the principal pointed out particular students who were harmed. Faced with this abdication of duty from the police, the principal walked away from the cop hiding in his car and returned to where the intruder was.

Faced with this embarrassing behavior, they threw the principal under the bus, lying that his refusal to cooperate made it impossible for them to do their jobs.

https://www.kiro7.com/news/local/two-conflicting-stories-what-really-happened-sand-point-elementary/7TXOCPCXERGO5HJX63LIF7HST4/

Of course, local news sources initially ran the cops absurd story totally on their word alone. Obviously the public smelled a rat because none of the claims the cops made are credible. The notion that a school intruder situation is not one where a cop has unambiguous probable cause to make an arrest, especially when the intruder is still present and behaving erratically, is simply not believable.

A fifth-grade student in that classroom told KIRO 7 that the teacher came into the portable classroom and forced the intruder out.

“I feel like the principal and all the teachers did exactly the right thing and were incredibly brave,” said Vanderbilt.

Parents like Vanderbilt are pushing back on the narrative from Seattle Police that the principal was “uncooperative.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
In parts of the United States, it is valid for self defense against bears. Obviously this would not affect the majority of Americans, but it still is a valid use.
Click to expand...

Oh come on. This is nonsense of the highest order. Just change the “valid” bit. Pistols might be useful against attacks by crocodiles or sharks, but Australian society gets by without these “valid” weapons just fine.
 
Warp12 said:
I have to ask, where did you come up with the "self defense against bears" example?

I know that some do carry a large caliber pistol as a back up when hunting in bear country. But that is is quite the outlier.
Click to expand...


It was the obvious exception for handguns where the US genuinely is a special case compared to Western Europe, for example.

Yes it is an outlier, but it's something that any legislation would have to account for. I have no idea what proportion of the Alaskan population, for example, would need such protection.
 
jimbob said:
It was the obvious exception for handguns where the US genuinely is a special case compared to Western Europe, for example.

Yes it is an outlier, but it's something that any legislation would have to account for. I have no idea what proportion of the Alaskan population, for example, would need such protection.
Click to expand...

It is a perfectly legitimate use of a handgun under some specific circumstances.

I spent 5 years in Alaska, and fished often. Bears were common. I wager I’ve been within 50 yds of both Black and Brown bears more than 50 times. I always carried a pistol, because it made me feel better. Research shows that I might have been as safe with just bear spray. If I were not relatively well trained in the use of a handgun, I might have been significantly safer with bear spray than with a pistol.

Require significant training and a license and then rent the pistol from the local government for the specific purpose of self-defense when hunting or fishing in bear country.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Why do civilians need pistols at all?
Why exempt revolvers?
Click to expand...

Because self-defense is a legitimate reason to own a firearm, and sometimes a handgun is the best tool for that purpose. But civilians don't need Glocks with 17-round magazines.
 
cmikes said:
It's not surprising that any kind of restrictions on rifles, scary looking assault or otherwise, would have no effect on crime statistics. After all, according to the FBI crime statistics, more people are beaten to death with blunt instruments or bare hands than are killed with rifles every year. Maybe we need to ban hammers.
Click to expand...

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/D-Lmvgs9O5c
 
jimbob said:
In parts of the United States, it is valid for self defense against bears. Obviously this would not affect the majority of Americans, but it still is a valid use.
Click to expand...

Self-defense against people is a legitimate reason to own a firearm. It just shouldn't be as easy as it is now.
 
Bob001 said:
Because self-defense is a legitimate reason to own a firearm, and sometimes a handgun is the best tool for that purpose. But civilians don't need Glocks with 17-round magazines.
Click to expand...

Self-defense isn't a reason to own a handgun, or any gun. "Using deadly force to shoot someone and counterattack in self-defense" is what you mean. Gun advocates like to gloss over that first, and much more important, bit.
 
Thermal said:
Self-defense isn't a reason to own a handgun, or any gun. "Using deadly force to shoot someone and counterattack in self-defense" is what you mean. Gun advocates like to gloss over that first, and much more important, bit.
Click to expand...

I'm not a gun advocate. And I don't understand what distinction you are trying to make. Self-defense can sometimes be accomplished by displaying a firearm against an intruder or potential attacker, without actually using any force at all. And there's a difference between the reasons to own a gun and the reasons to use it.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
I'm not a gun advocate. And I don't understand what distinction you are trying to make. Self-defense can sometimes be accomplished by displaying a firearm against an intruder or potential attacker, without actually using any force at all.
Click to expand...

Which is a threat. Brandishing is (a crime) in many circumstances.

I also didn't say you were a gun advocate. The distinction I am making is that counter aggression is not defense. A lot of the ambiguities get cleared right up if we call the spade a spade. People who want to carry guns (especially if they make no other defensive preparations) prepare to aggressively kill, not defend. Self defense is the legal excuse for shooting someone, not the act itself.

eta: your edit: the reasons better damn well be identical. If (g)you own a gun without intent to kill with it, you are definitely part of the problem.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom