• 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!

jimbob said:
I really don't see a reasonable civilian use for carbines, except shooting on ranges, which is where I think they should be kept.
Click to expand...

A reasonable use of carbines is for rural people to carry them on horseback, or in 4WDs or other all-trerrain vehicles
 
joesixpack said:
You are aware of the ability of teen age boys to not only open aspirin bottles but get their hands on their parents car keys for a joy ride, right? A trigger lock has a key as well.

And reading further, I stated that trigger locks are a non starter when it comes to most teen gun violence. These kids are buying guns illegally, not using their parent's.
Click to expand...

Never mind that the Newton shooter used weapons from his parents.

His task was really helped by his Mom believing in survivalist nonsense and bought weapons more suited for fighting a battle than for hunting or target shooting.
 
Last edited:
zeggman said:
I suspect the police secrecy isn't really secrecy so much as ignorance. They're hoping to get some information from the smashed computers, but computer forensics takes a lot of time, and they don't have anything yet. Maybe they haven't even been able to read the hard drives.

I hope they get enough evidence from the emails they've subpoenaed and the computers to put together a credible motive, but when someone is sick enough to put a dozen bullets into a six-year-old while her classmates watch, then move on to the next victim, any motive there might have been may be irretrievable.
Click to expand...

I just heard on the radio today that the guy did indeed smash the hard drives. If we assume that his suicide was premeditated, then it would seem that smashing the hard drives might have been a deliberate attempt to prevent the police from tracing his contacts (perhaps even having been prompted to do so).

It's beginning to look like this investigation isn't going to conclude anytime soon...
 
Kestrel said:
Never mind that the Newton shooter used weapons from his parents.

His task was really helped by his Mom believing in survivalist nonsense and bought weapons more suited for fighting a battle than for hunting or target shooting.
Click to expand...

I think you misunderstood me. I was saying that trigger locks are not going to prevent mass shootings, and they aren't going to prevent the bulk of teen gun violence (which is NOT mass shootings but is generally gang related). Trigger locks prevent small children from playing with their parents' gun, and not much else.

If you want to address gun violence, mass shootings make up a very small percentage of it. If you focus all your efforts on preventing mass shootings you'll be ignoring most gun violence. If you are under the illusion that you can address BOTH by banning assault weapons you're simply wrong. In fact, the only way to address both through gun control laws would require draconian measures that very few voters would support.

ETA; Just to make sure I make this point which I failed to do above, Mass shootings make up a tiny fraction of teen gun violence, criminal activity makes up the bulk of it. Discussing gun violence in the context of a mass shooting is the worst way to address the issue.
 
Last edited:
joesixpack said:
So I see the emotional context of the cause of death is far more important than the actual result.
Click to expand...
No, that's your condescending view. The context is murder vs accident.
joesixpack said:
No one here on either side of this debate is shrugging their shoulders and saying "Same diff, kids die all sorts of ways".
Click to expand...
Um, no, lots of people are saying the equivalent of exactly that.
joesixpack said:
You seem unable to discuss possible solutions to the problem dispassionately.
Click to expand...
Once again, that's your dismissive and condescending attitude. I suggest you reply to what's written, not to what you hope to read.
 
Noztradamus said:
A reasonable use of carbines is for rural people to carry them on horseback, or in 4WDs or other all-trerrain vehicles
Click to expand...

The Ruger 'Mini-14' was specifically designed for this purpose, even having a variant called the "Ranch Rifle".

However, it is a semi-automatic carbine that was used by another nutter in a shooting at L'Ecole Poytechnique (Quebec Canada) many years ago and people wanted it banned because of it.

I'm betting if Ruger had instead named the rifle the "Coyote Killer Deluxe" instead of "Mini 14"* banning the gun would have likely been afforded less consideration...

(* The name is derived from the fact that the mechanical operation of the rifle's action was similar to the action found on the larger M14 rifle.)
 
Last edited:
Noztradamus said:
Just hypothetically. The other side of non area-effect weapons operable by a single individual.

If pushed, follow the Swiss model. Civilians may posses a semi-automatic version of the selective fire regular military arm, or the equivilent.
Click to expand...

... only after they have had proper training by doing military service (during the course of which some people will be weeded out as not suitable to have access to firearms), of course.
 
Checkmite said:
What does it matter how many less-than-four-year-olds die in pools when none of them are dying in these mass shootings?
Click to expand...
I made the point because I was responding to someone who tried to use "children" to get some emotional leverage. It was appropriate in context; if you would prefer to consider all victims, I'm happy to have that discussion too.
 
DavidJames said:
I'm flabbergasted. Are people honestly trying claim that someone walking into a school or theater and killing dozens of people is no different then having people drown in a swimming pool. Yes, in both cases they are dead. But other then that, are you really telling me there is no difference and society should treat each the same? Cold blooded murder and accidental drowning should be considered equal?
Click to expand...
No, when a swimming pool kills someone we shouldn't put it in prison.

I don't argue that they're the same, but many of the arguments I hear for taking away guns would seem to apply to swimming pools.

No one needs a swimming pool. They cause avoidable deaths.

In the case of swimming pools, all the policy changes involve providing barriers and supervision so that children drown less often. No one argues that we should eliminate them, though that's the only way to insure that no child drowns in one.

I think it's reasonable to treat "the gun problem" the same way. Make it more difficult for dangerous people to use them to kill people, by creating barriers that exclude dangerous people carrying guns.
 
Autolite said:
I just heard on the radio today that the guy did indeed smash the hard drives. If we assume that his suicide was premeditated, then it would seem that smashing the hard drives might have been a deliberate attempt to prevent the police from tracing his contacts (perhaps even having been prompted to do so).

It's beginning to look like this investigation isn't going to conclude anytime soon...
Click to expand...
It isn't easy to smash a hard drive. I wonder if he used bullets.
 
zeggman said:
No, when a swimming pool kills someone we shouldn't put it in prison.

I don't argue that they're the same, but many of the arguments I hear for taking away guns would seem to apply to swimming pools.

No one needs a swimming pool. They cause avoidable deaths.

In the case of swimming pools, all the policy changes involve providing barriers and supervision so that children drown less often. No one argues that we should eliminate them, though that's the only way to insure that no child drowns in one.

I think it's reasonable to treat "the gun problem" the same way. Make it more difficult for dangerous people to use them to kill people, by creating barriers that exclude dangerous people carrying guns.
Click to expand...

How do you know who is a 'dangerous' person. From what I can tell, many of these shootings have been done by previously law abiding people.

As for swimming pools, in Australia there are many rules that govern their use and safety. They must all have a child proof fence around them. Ladders have design rules they must meet for safety purposes.
 
a_unique_person said:
How do you know who is a 'dangerous' person.
Click to expand...
He's the one walking toward the school carrying a rifle.

You prevent him from killing children by having the entrances to the school locked from the inside, and having windows that can't be shot out.

a_unique_person said:
As for swimming pools, in Australia there are many rules that govern their use and safety. They must all have a child proof fence around them. Ladders have design rules they must meet for safety purposes.
Click to expand...
I'm saying similar measures can minimize these kinds of gun deaths too. No one has been shot on a commercial airline in several decades.
 
joesixpack said:
I'm sorry, "Four years old and under" is specifically NOT included in "school age kids under 15" which means from 5-15 years old.

I find it hard to believe that it's so hard to believe that more four-and-under kids die in swimming pools than by firearms, and so far you haven't demonstrated that it's not so.

I don't know what the source of that data was for the original claim, but I don't find it a terribly extraordinary one. I'd be happy to see proof either way.
Click to expand...

Apart from the fact that you're cherry-picking like mad, and the correct comparison would be all gun deaths versus all private pool deaths, there are another two more serious problem with the argument.

The first is that it might well turn out that private pools are a dangerous extravagance and that they shouldn't be allowed, or shouldn't be allowed in households with children. You can't just take for granted that private pools are a good idea and hence that anything that kills fewer people than pools is a good idea.

The second is that you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. If pools and guns both kill people, that means both are social problems in need of a solution. It would be silly to demand that we must completely ignore the lesser problem (whichever of the two it is) until the greater problem is solved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom