• 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.

School shooting: but don't mention guns!

I think instead there will be more demands to have citizens armed to stop massacres

http://www.examiner.com/article/movie-massacre-proves-need-for-armed-citizens-says-gun-law-expert-1

The article lists massacres which continued because there was no one there to shoot the shooter, Fort Hood Texas, Virginnia Poly, Aurora Movie Massacre and those where there was

"Contrast these incidents with the January 16, 2002 incident at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia when two students with guns stopped what could have been a mass murder when they tackled a culprit after he had killed three people.

Consider, too, the October 1, 1997 incident in Pearl, Mississippi, when an assistant principal at a high school went to his car, got his gun and shot the murderer of two students.

Recall the April 24, 1998 time in Edinboro, Pennsylvania when a bystander pointed a shotgun at the murderer of a teacher when he stopped to reload."

The conclusions are "The message is clear. Gun laws do not stop mass murder. Citizens armed with guns do. Guns save lives" and "We have a bunch of bullies in the White House, in Congress and local governments who are terrified of private citizens being armed and able to defend themselves from corrupt officials..."

The answer is that the people will save themselves by being armed all the time.
 
Information Analyst said:
What British armed police use - i.e. one bullet per trigger pull.
Click to expand...

Semi-automatic also means the gun loads the next round for you and then you fire one shot and the next bullet is automatically loaded. Automatic means put your finger on the trigger and the gun keeps firing till you take it off or it runs out of ammo.
 
commandlinegamer said:
Worth noting in addition to Carnivore's worthy post above, the Scottish Government announced only a day ago a consultation with regard to the licensing of airguns:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20720203

"Under the new scheme, anyone wanting to own an air gun would need to demonstrate they had a legitimate reason for doing so."
Click to expand...

We are told that there, "could be as many as half a million unlicensed air guns in Scotland," and that last year (Apr 2011 - Mar 2012) there were 195 offences commited with air weapons, in a context of firearms crime as a whole falling by 21%. This means that the Scottish government has the time and the inclination to institute a massive and costly licensing exercise, supposedly to combat criminal misuse that runs to just one in every 2,564 air weapons (i.e. 0.04%). This is all the more remarkable given that at 195 offences, Scotland has a air weapons crime rate of 3.7 per 100,000 of population. England & Wales, meanwhile, had 4,203 air weapon offences in 2010/11 - a rate of 7.5 per 100,000 - yet there is virtually zero demand to license such weapons south of the border.

So what's going on here? The reality is that a certain lobby in Scotland has exploited a very small number of extremely tragic incidents to whip up the populace over the last few years, and the SNP are - yet again - resolutely playing to the gallery as they champ at the bit towards independence. One can only wonder at what services will "pay" for the diversion of funds to feed this licensing beast, although if the numbers of air weapons in circulation are to be believed, it would be staggering if more than a few tens of thousands ever get legitimised by such methods.
 
Last edited:
NWO Sentryman said:
I agree on your sentiments. Banning guns in the USA would be like banning abortion. Outright impossible to enforce.
Click to expand...

This seems to be the case in Canada.

The majority of murders in Canada are carried out with something other than a firearm. The overwhelming majority of firearm related murders are carried out by someone illegally in possession of a firearm. Shootings involving a legally owned gun are comparatively rare. Factually, it's extremely rare for a legally owned hand gun to be used.

Canada has very tight restrictions and prohibitions reference the legal acquisition, ownership and use of hand guns yet they are still commonly employed by unlicensed individuals with criminal intent.

A person without the proper licensing is effectively 'banned' from possessing a hand gun. The problem seems to be finding a way to convince those with criminal intent to comply with this ban...
 
Nessie said:
I think instead there will be more demands to have citizens armed to stop massacres

http://www.examiner.com/article/movie-massacre-proves-need-for-armed-citizens-says-gun-law-expert-1

The article lists massacres which continued because there was no one there to shoot the shooter, Fort Hood Texas, Virginnia Poly, Aurora Movie Massacre and those where there was

"Contrast these incidents with the January 16, 2002 incident at the Appalachian Law School in Grundy, Virginia when two students with guns stopped what could have been a mass murder when they tackled a culprit after he had killed three people.

Consider, too, the October 1, 1997 incident in Pearl, Mississippi, when an assistant principal at a high school went to his car, got his gun and shot the murderer of two students.

Recall the April 24, 1998 time in Edinboro, Pennsylvania when a bystander pointed a shotgun at the murderer of a teacher when he stopped to reload."

The conclusions are "The message is clear. Gun laws do not stop mass murder. Citizens armed with guns do. Guns save lives" and "We have a bunch of bullies in the White House, in Congress and local governments who are terrified of private citizens being armed and able to defend themselves from corrupt officials..."

The answer is that the people will save themselves by being armed all the time.
Click to expand...


Such ridiculous logic, as if citizens having guns will be able to fight the armed power of the state! Think Gaza...
 
JihadJane said:
Such ridiculous logic, as if citizens having guns will be able to fight the armed power of the state! Think Gaza...
Click to expand...

I agree, but it is that logic that wins in the USA. Risk of massacre vs risk of the government becoming a tyranny. Tyranny is apparently more likely.
 
anglolawyer said:
So, is a cowboy's six gun a semi?
Click to expand...

A 'six-gun' is a revolver, not a 'semi'.

Semi-automatic/automatic firearms chamber the next round mechanically/pneumatically from a magazine after a shot is fired by virtue of their design.

The rounds in most revolvers must be chambered by hand before the firearm is used. This is what differentiates it from a semi-auto or automatic gun.

Some 'revolver' type guns do indeed chamber their rounds automatically (such as the M39 automatic revolver cannon) but the concept is not commonly found with hand held firearms available to the public...
 
Last edited:
StankApe said:
Have you ever visited an inner city low income housing development? It really is easier to arm yourself than it is to "fix" unsafe areas. much easier
Click to expand...
That is terribly sad - I understand that it is easier to fight back rather than address the underlying societal issues, but it's perpetuating violence. Is there the political will there to address the cycle of inner city poverty and violence and the gang culture?

I'm addressing Americans in general, not just StankApe here: What do you think your country could do to lessen gun crime and gun deaths in general, as well as these spree killings?

Do you think it's possible to lower your murder rate from 4.2 per hundred thousand to numbers more comparable with say Canada (1.6), the UK (1.2) or Australia (1.0)? If so, what measures should be taken to do so?
 
Profanz said:
So a semi-automatic is not an assault weapon by definition? Is that it?
Click to expand...

It may seem rather silly but I feel that it's important to stick with proper definitions if it could involve criminal liability. The law courts are apparently somewhat fussy in that respect also...
 
commandlinegamer said:
Paraphrasing a post I just saw on Twitter: Why is it a right to have guns, but a privilege to have universal healthcare?
Click to expand...

Understand your point - the answer is: the founding fathers/authors of the Constitution added in the guns thing but said nothing about a right to health care. I prefer both.:):):)
 
Agatha said:
That is terribly sad - I understand that it is easier to fight back rather than address the underlying societal issues, but it's perpetuating violence. Is there the political will there to address the cycle of inner city poverty and violence and the gang culture?

I'm addressing Americans in general, not just StankApe here: What do you think your country could do to lessen gun crime and gun deaths in general, as well as these spree killings?

Do you think it's possible to lower your murder rate from 4.2 per hundred thousand to numbers more comparable with say Canada (1.6), the UK (1.2) or Australia (1.0)? If so, what measures should be taken to do so?
Click to expand...
I don't think we understand what motivates spree killings well enough to formulate effective policies.

For gang violence, the mindset of violent subcultures will need to shift. Providing real alternatives and an environment which rewards personal responsibility and initiative will help. Schools, jobs, and after-school programs have to contend with disfunctional homes and neighborhoods, so progress is guaranteed to be slow.

For murders motivated by jealousy or greed, I'm not sure what can be done except better police work.
 
zeggman said:
I don't expect to see it myself, I just get annoyed with the "why do you need (x) to hunt deer?" opiners who IMO are missing the point.

There are still enough tyrannical governments in the world to suggest that, however unlikely it is that the United States would ever find itself in that position, it isn't completely outside the realm of possibility.

If we ever decide, as a nation, that it is outside the realm of possibility, we can repeal the 2nd Amendment. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
I sincerely doubt that, but we will see. And I strongly suspect I will be very long dead before that occurs.
 
zeggman said:
I don't expect to see it myself, I just get annoyed with the "why do you need (x) to hunt deer?" opiners who IMO are missing the point.

There are still enough tyrannical governments in the world to suggest that, however unlikely it is that the United States would ever find itself in that position, it isn't completely outside the realm of possibility.

If we ever decide, as a nation, that it is outside the realm of possibility, we can repeal the 2nd Amendment. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
Look at the resources of the US military. If that was in the hands of a tyrannical government they would piss all over what ever guns happened to be in the hands of private citizens. Sure the guns might cause complications, but the private citizens would be overwhelmingly outgunned in a way that I don't think would have been true when the constitution was written.

Also, you are far more likely, surely to have some nut, or group of nuts try to take down the ligitimate government.

If people think their gun ownership is something to do with defending their country from tyranny then they have confused themselves with Mad Max, or Snake Plissken.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Yes, people break the law.

That's what we've been trying to say.
Click to expand...
Except I refer you to ... you:

LTC8K6 said:
The only way, in some states, to avoid the background check is for two private citizens to make the transaction
Click to expand...
As I vaguely understand, this loophole is exploited frequently.

But regarding gun sellers breaking existing laws, I take we agree that these laws should actually be enforced.
 
zeggman said:
I suppose I'm one of those gun nuts, then, though I don't own a gun myself.

This was, of course, precisely the reason the 2nd Amendment was written, whether you like it or not.

And yes, if the government became too tyrannical, I'm pretty sure 300 million armed citizens would be more than a match for it.
Click to expand...

The real protection is the fact that the armed forces of the US are drawn from the general population of the US. This makes them a poor tool for any potential tyrant to use against the people of the US.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom