School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[Belz...]

The most obvious common factor in mass shootings is the gun.

One could safely make the argument that if the shooters weren't mentally ill, they wouldn't be shooters. In fact, they wouldn't use knives or bombs or baseball bats either, because they'd be sane. So your common factor seems less common than Polaris' common factor.

 

[Quad4_72]

Sorry, this, just like the absurd comparison to auto deaths isn't even close to justification for dealing with guns.

If you want to make a valid comparison, identify the number of illegal drugs and cars used to murder others.

Well first of all, I never made the car reference. Second, the point I was making about drugs was whether or not banning something truly works to prevent unnecessary deaths.

 

[Belz...]

Thank you for that.

Very informative. I'm sure that everyone here can both read it and understand it. They still won't give up their guns though, it's a shame.

I wonder how those numbers factor in culture, in addition to number of firearms.

 

[Kestrel]

I don't consider my guns as being for self defense. I don't keep them ready for that. I don't expect to use them for that. It's not why I own 2 rifles and 2 pistols.

There was no real opposition to this shooter until a police officer arrived. He could have had a single shot weapon. It's not like it takes long to reload one...especially if you are a crazed lunatic...

At least three adults died trying to rush the shooter. If he had a single shot rifle, their efforts would have been more likely to succeed. Havering to reload would also have given more children a chance to run away. The school shooter in Alberta a few years back who used a single shot rifle only managed a few shots before being tackled.

Does the convenience of large capacity magazines to a target shooter outweigh the risk to the rest of society?

 

[Checkmite]

Well first of all, I never made the car reference. Second, the point I was making about drugs was whether or not banning something truly works to prevent unnecessary deaths.

When someone misuses a banned drug it doesn't result in a mass-casualty incident in a first-grade classroom, movie theater, shopping mall (etc).

 

[Quad4_72]

At least three adults died trying to rush the shooter. If he had a single shot rifle, their efforts would have been more likely to succeed. Havering to reload would also have given more children a chance to run away. The school shooter in Alberta a few years back who used a single shot rifle only managed a few shots before being tackled.

Does the convenience of large capacity magazines to a target shooter outweigh the risk to the rest of society?

Then on the flip side of things, had a single one of those teachers been armed, they could have possibly disabled the shooter before he killed all those kids.

 

[Ambrosia]

Apart from unpermitting the most shotguns now in common use, just what do you consider a low calibre shotgun? Just .410? Or .410 and 28 guage? Or would you allow 20 guage as well? Inquiring minds want to know.

I am mostly clueless about what defines a high calibre, more powerful weapon.

Where the line itself is drawn is arbitrary and is up to the people actually making the laws.

I am suggesting that maybe a line should be drawn somewhere in the first place.


In the UK there are lots of people who own and use shotguns. Farmers, people who hunt game, wild fowlers, people that shoot clay discs for fun etc.

Here a shotgun license is very easy to come by. You can have a semi-automatic or pump action shotgun but it cannot hold more than 2 rounds in the magazine and 1 more in the chamber.

A firearms certificate, which is a lot harder to acquire, is required if you want a larger magazine, or more powerful ammunition.

I'd draw my line at what a UK shotgun certificate allows you to use and carry, but I freely admit to not being all that knowledgeable as to exactly what that entails.

 

[Noztradamus]

Originally Posted by Noztradamus
When Bible Believing Christians demand a say in how biology is taught in schools, a great many people ridicule them.

When it comes to guns, those same people feel free to demand the same say, with equal lack of knowledge, understanding, or thought.
Funny you should say that.

Funny you should say that.

One side of this debate is not open to change, has a fixed position of belief from which modern events will not change them, likes to ignore any amount of evidence showing their position could do with review (choosing to re-interpret any data to bolster their position), and is pointing repeatedly to a document hundreds of years old which cannot be questioned.

Interesting...

I don't point to it, I'm not saying it can't be questioned. And hundreds? Thousands. Aristotle's Politics is my starting position for a responsible citizen - and not the Samurai Shepherds of Plato* you seem to prefer

And one side has little understanding of the mechanisms involved or how they work, argues instead of the consquences, blaming "this new thing" for causing all the massacres, genocides, promiscuity, adultery, divorce, abortion, that have occured since the bad thing was inventted back in the 19th Century. Post hoc ergo propter hoc,

Is there a name for the logical fallacy of implying a new law should not be implemented because it might not be 100% followed (even if it might be an improvement on the current state of affairs)?

Eighteenth Amendment sounds like good idea, even if it's not 100%

So no-one in America should be allowed guns because no-one, not even the police or military are in your opinion competent to guard them? Is that what you are saying?

"even"? I don't ascribe any supercompetance to the police or military


* Awesome name for a band

 

[Quad4_72]

When someone misuses a banned drug it doesn't result in a mass-casualty incident in a first-grade classroom, movie theater, shopping mall (etc).

Still not the point being made, but alright.

 

[Belz...]

Without the gun you just get the nutcase.

And without the nutcase you get nothing. Sounds better to me.

 

[Belz...]

I don't believe in owning guns for self defence.

Are you saying that you think people who own guns for self-defense don't exist ??

 

[Belz...]

The occasional gun massacres are mostly due to the intersection of two rights: the right to own guns, and the right to not be involuntarily committed for mental illness if one has not committed a crime.

The former dates back to the founding of the country; the latter is surprisingly recent. One seasonal movie, Miracle on 34th Street, was released in (and is set close to) 1947. Though the movie has its share of fantasy elements, one aspect that viewers of the time did not find fantastic was the prospect of a lucid adult being committed by a court due to exhibiting delusions, with no solid proof of his actually presenting a danger to anyone. That didn't really change much, either, until (IIRC) the 1970s.

I wouldn't want to go back to those days, exactly. (For one thing, I'd miss many of my American JREF friends. ) But currently, parents and associates can report to the police that a person is collecting guns, describing violent fantasies, exhibiting mood swings and altered personality, and the police can take no action. By the time an actionable crime has been committed, it's likely to be so serious in nature (e.g. making "terroristic" threats if not an actual killing) that the person's mental health is now a secondary issue.

A disarmed populace can be abused and exploited by a tyrannical government. So can a system of involuntary mental health intervention, as was clearly shown by the former Soviet Union. Weighed against that, people do (and always have; this is not a new phenomenon) sometimes become mentally ill and flip out with guns, if they're not locked up and if they have guns.

I don't know what the right answer is. Some degree of risk seems unavoidable; all we can do is shift risk from one type to another.

For instance, what can we do about those lethal metal child killing machines, that Americans not only insist on having as much access to as possible, not only insist they couldn't live without, but also romanticize to the point of fetishism? (I'm talking, of course, about automobiles.)

Respectfully,
Myriad

<Applause>

 

[Nessie]

People in the UK have just as much of a right to a firearm than people in the USA. The main differences are that in the UK the choice of weapon is smaller, you have to be licensed and your gun registered and if you have a mental illness you are less likely to be allowed a gun compared to the USA.

People in the UK have just as much of a right to defend themselves from attack as in the USA. The main difference is, going by press reports and comments made here, in the UK you appear to be more likely to be answerable to the courts for your actions in the UK than in the USA.

People in the UK do not need guns for self defence as there are far fewer guns and they have to be kept locked away when not in use, so access is harder. People in the USA are far more likely to need a gun for self defence as there are far more guns and they are not always kept so secure, so access is easier.

With an estimated 270 million guns in the USA, 88.8 guns for every 100 people I do not think there is a way out the issue of mass shootings for the USA. (Guardian Datablog Gun map)

Since 1982 there have been 62 mass murders (one incident, at least 4 people killed) in the USA all with firearms. Of the 142 weapons used 3/4 were legal and the majority were handguns.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map

This year there have been four such incidents, Aurora, Wisconsin, Minneapolis and now Conneticut. There is no reason to believe even if stronger gun control action is taken that that rate will drop as it would like the little boy with his finger in the dyke.

 

[Ambrosia]

So with regards to the prevention of mass shootings, keeping the weapons at the gun range would basically have no impact.

Well in the Newton school shooting the shooter took his weapons from his mothers house. Could have had an impact in this case as the shooter wasn't old enough to own weapons of his very own.

I think everyone should have the right to a rifle (With the exception of felons, mentally disturbed, etc). A prime example would be hunters. Why should a hunter have to register his rifle at a gun club to go hunting?

I have no problem with people having and using rifles for sport, or for hunting. Whats so inconvenient to our hunter about being registered with a gun club?

Isn't learning how to maintain a rifle, how to fire a rifle, and how to store and carry a rifle without endangering yourself, a useful prerequisite of owning a rifle? The kind of basic training that one would learn in a gun club, or from being in the military.

 

[Ashles]

I don't point to it, I'm not saying it can't be questioned. And hundreds? Thousands. Aristotle's Politics is my starting position for a responsible citizen - and not the Samurai Shepherds of Plato* you seem to prefer

That's nice, but I'm fairly sure it's the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States that people have been referring to in this thread. I don't think anyone here is claiming their right to bear arms is legally protected by Aristotle's Politics.

 

[Noztradamus]

~~~

Isn't learning how to maintain a rifle, how to fire a rifle, and how to store and carry a rifle without endangering yourself, a useful prerequisite of owning a rifle? The kind of basic training that one would learn in a gun club, or from being in the military.

Yes. Teach it in the schools as Gun Ed.

 

[LTC8K6]

At least three adults died trying to rush the shooter. If he had a single shot rifle, their efforts would have been more likely to succeed. Havering to reload would also have given more children a chance to run away. The school shooter in Alberta a few years back who used a single shot rifle only managed a few shots before being tackled.

Does the convenience of large capacity magazines to a target shooter outweigh the risk to the rest of society?

Well, I'm not trusting reports of events yet.

Who needs large cap mags? Mags can be changed almost instantly.

Also, if one went in there with a single shot weapon, logically one would prepare to commit the crime with that weapon.

For instance, a single person would not be able to rush me were I using single shot weapons in such a scenario.

I would keep one gun loaded just to repel a rush, as I did the bulk of my shooting with another gun.

Also, a rifle is a great self defense weapon, even when unloaded. A butt stroke to the head will put just about anyone down for the count.

Revolvers probably wouldn't be banned, either. One could be used to prevent being rushed.

Not to mention that revolvers can be rapidly reloaded as well these days.

 

[Quad4_72]

Well in the Newton school shooting the shooter took his weapons from his mothers house. Could have had an impact in this case as the shooter wasn't old enough to own weapons of his very own.

So perhaps he would have waited a year then to execute the shooting?

I have no problem with people having and using rifles for sport, or for hunting. Whats so inconvenient to our hunter about being registered with a gun club?

It's not necessarily about the registering, but I am failing to see how this is going to stop mass shootings at schools.

Isn't learning how to maintain a rifle, how to fire a rifle, and how to store and carry a rifle without endangering yourself, a useful prerequisite of owning a rifle? The kind of basic training that one would learn in a gun club, or from being in the military.

Yes it is. This addresses firearms safety, but it does not address the prevention of mass shootings.

 

[Multivac]

This is the dumbest thing any gun owner ever said. Of course guns kill people. That there are many ways of killing people does not negate the fact that guns are created for one purpose and one purpose only: TO KILL.

You should take that nonsense over to one of the gun control threads where it can be properly addressed. It's simply not true, a dishonest attempt to poison the well. This isn't the proper thread to be spreading your manure.

GeeMack: how is Biscuits post nonsense? Are you saying that guns aren't designed to kill?

 

[Belz...]

I thought it was to shoot the bad guys.