School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[Metullus]

Besides trying to sidetrack the issue, what's your point?

Hardly an attempt to sidetrack anything. You used a term and I am curious what you mean by that term. If you expect meaningful discussion it would be helpful if we all understand what it is we are discussing.

Is it that you believe a meaningful ban on some kinds of weapons is simply impossible?

Hardly. I just want to know what and why before I can judge whether I think a particular action is reasonable and likely to be effective.

Or are you just buying the talking point, "weapons or rifles? Oo, look over there", and regurgitating it?

What talking point? You proposed something; I am merely interested in what exactly it is that you are proposing.

 

[joesixpack]

No, that's your condescending view. The context is murder vs accident.

No, that's me pointing out that you're not really interested in saving lives if the means of death is more important than the result.

Um, no, lots of people are saying the equivalent of exactly that.

I don't think you are able to discern what it is that they may or may not be saying because it seems that your righteous indignation is getting the better of you. What they are pointing out is that there is an inconsistency in the attitude of those who would cheerfully take a civil liberty in the name of saving lives when other actions would save as many or more lives without taking a civil liberty from those who didn't actually commit the murders (or any murders). The fact that more people are willing to suppress a civil right in the wake of a sensational murder of children than were before should set off some sort of self examination as to the reason why that would be.

Murder is murder, regardless of whether the victim is 5, 15, or 50. People are killed through violence at much higher rates in countries with stricter gun control laws. I wonder why that is? Perhaps America's high rate of violent crime has less to do with the presence of guns and more to do with American's propensity towards violence. Perhaps we should examine the root causes of violence if we want to reduce it rather than taking away people's right to defend themselves or the feel good measure of banning certain weapons because of their putative nomenclature.

Once again, that's your dismissive and condescending attitude. I suggest you reply to what's written, not to what you hope to read.

I suggest you follow the posts and observations made by the more dispassionate people in this discussion rather than looking for reason to cast those who disagree with you as cold hearted gun lovers.

 

[AlBell]

And if we want to fire full auto, we will anyway...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlFZOBiWRko

This can be done with your finger, but it's not as accurate.

Another way to "bump fire"...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlFZOBiWRko

No one is running around doing this to commit crimes, despite it being legal and easy to do.

Those are the same video, so not another way to "bump fire".

Nor do I understand what I see. Is the shooter pushing the gun away from himself and the gun recoil causes another shot?

 

[joesixpack]

So what do we as a society do about this problem? Australia responded with tight gun control measures after the Port Arther massacre^WP in 1996. Since that time, they have had zero shooting sprees. The measures taken by Australia may be politically impossible in the US, but we might be able to have some effect with lesser measures.

I am actually wondering how many shooting sprees there were BEFORE the Port Arther Massacre? The number must have been exceptionally small if not zero, so I wonder how effective the law has actually been in preventing it from happening again. Yes, it seems to be direct cause and effect, but how the hell could you actually know? Your experiment hasn't exactly been replicated, yet the assumption is that it demonstrates the effectiveness of banning guns. It most certainly does not, if you examine it critically.

 

[Autolite]

Yes, the gun nuts are arguing the definition like it's a reason not to move forward. I didn't say the legislators don't need to define what they are banning. My complaint is using this semantics argument like the shiny object, "oh look over there."

Yes, when/if the legislation is written it will need definitions. But the posts in this forum bringing this issue up aren't saying, let's discuss the definition, they are saying things like:
And

That's basically trying to derail the discussion.

Using the term 'assault rifle' to describe a firearm that isn't is a deliberate and dishonest attempt to mislead people who do not understand the difference.

If the goal is to ban the private ownership of small, semi-automatic only firearms then say exactly that. Your argument loses credibility when you intentionally try to deceive...

 

[StankApe]

and there was a school shooting in Australia in 2002 (I don't know if this is before or after the ban) at Monash Univ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting


From what I found on wiki, there were 10 incidents of mass killings in Australia between 1976 and 2002 (7 between 1984 and 1992, including 3 in 1987 alone).

8 of these involved guns, 1 involved a large knife (7 killed ,6 wounded) and one was a fire (15 killed at a backpacker's hostel)

If you look further back, there are only 15 cases of mass killings listed since 1860. So, for all we know, they may go 30 years without another one, but then have 3 in one year like happened in 1987.

 

[lionking]

I am actually wondering how many shooting sprees there were BEFORE the Port Arther Massacre? The number must have been exceptionally small if not zero, so I wonder how effective the law has actually been in preventing it from happening again. Yes, it seems to be direct cause and effect, but how the hell could you actually know? Your experiment hasn't exactly been replicated, yet the assumption is that it demonstrates the effectiveness of banning guns. It most certainly does not, if you examine it critically.

Queen St, Hoddle St and Strathfield semi-automatic massacres all occurred before Port Arthur.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_mass_murders

None in the 16 years since. You can't absolutely prove cause and effect, that's true, but I can tell you that, a few gun enthusiasts aside, nobody wants to un-ban sem-automatics.

 

[Autolite]

Bull! It's both.

Take a firearm loaded with 30 bullets and add an individual with criminal intent and we'll see we've got a problem.

Take a firearm loaded with 3 bullets and add an individual with criminal intent and we'll see we've still got a problem.

Take a firearm loaded with 30 bullets, subtract the individual with criminal intent and now tell me where's the problem...

(Note: This is a only hypothetical illustration. I know that we can never really 'subtract' all those with criminal intent, no more than we would expect them to comply with a ammunition magazine capacity limitation law).

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

@ Metullus and Autolite

Re defining the guns to be banned, if you are serious the definition is an issue, then propose a definition or give a reason why one type of weapon should not be included.

The BS both of you are trying to pull is to challenge the use of particular terms. That is a phony distraction.

 

[lionking]

and there was a school shooting in Australia in 2002 (I don't know if this is before or after the ban) at Monash Univ. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monash_University_shooting

To start with, it wasn't a school, it was a university, a huge difference in Australia.

Secondly the only people who mention Monash Uni in the same breath as Port Arthur and Queen St seem to be gun enthusiasts saying "see, see, your gun ban didn't work". Personally I don't consider two deaths a massacre. Would two gun deaths even make the press in the US?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Take a firearm loaded with 30 bullets and add an individual with criminal intent and we'll see we've got a problem.

Take a firearm loaded with 3 bullets and add an individual with criminal intent and we'll see we've still got a problem.

Take a firearm loaded with 30 bullets, subtract the individual with criminal intent and now tell me where's the problem...

None of those arguments are valid.

You are arguing false dichotomies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

To start with, it wasn't a school, it was a university, a huge difference in Australia.

Secondly the only people who mention Monash Uni in the same breath as Port Arthur and Queen St seem to be gun enthusiasts saying "see, see, your gun ban didn't work". Personally I don't consider two deaths a massacre. Would two gun deaths even make the press in the US?

Hooray, I was hoping an Aussie would weigh in here.

I posted this in one of the other threads:

New Town to Newtown: How ’96 Massacre Spurred Gun Laws in Australia — and No Mass Shootings Since

The death toll eventually rose to 35 in what came to be known as the Port Arthur massacre. The person who carried out the mass killing was Martin Bryant, ironically from a place called New Town.

Well, just 12 days after the grisly attack and the public outcry it launched, Australia’s government responded by announcing a bipartisan deal to enact gun control measures. The pact included agreements with state and local governments. Since the laws were passed—for more than 15 years—there has not been a mass shooting in Australia.

Not saying the US doesn't have additional hurdles because we have so many more guns in circulation, but lest you think Oz is more like Canada or the UK when it comes to the gun ownership culture:

Well, it was in—Australia at the time was, as you said, a country, and it still is a country, where hunting is an important activity. There is a—Australia wins Olympic medals in shooting. You know, in Australia there’s a high premium placed on rugged masculinity, and it’s a frontier country. And so, it has some similarities with the U.S.

And also, another similarity was that we had had, in the previous couple of decades, occasionally mass shootings. About once a year, we had a mass shooting. And on each occasion, there was a lot of talk about the gun laws and politicians, similar to here, actually, avoiding the issue, saying, "Well, we need to look at family values and mental health and everything else," and basically being too frightened to do anything about the gun laws, because the gun lobby always threatened to punish electorally any party that did actually strengthen the laws.

What happened in '96 was so shocking, and also the level of anger and dissatisfaction and frustration in the public was so high by then, that really that was the tipping point for Australia.

Followed with this post when it was asked if the ban was successful:

There are conflicting web site claims so I'll have to look into it. The Democracy Now piece said the rate of gun violence including suicides went down but someone has a web page up claiming otherwise.

And as a result, now 15 years later, we’ve not had a mass shooting since that time, and also gun deaths in general are about 50 percent lower than what they were.

 

[StankApe]

To start with, it wasn't a school, it was a university, a huge difference in Australia.

Secondly the only people who mention Monash Uni in the same breath as Port Arthur and Queen St seem to be gun enthusiasts saying "see, see, your gun ban didn't work". Personally I don't consider two deaths a massacre. Would two gun deaths even make the press in the US?

LOL!!!!!


"that doesn't count as a school, that's a university!"

stundie worthy......

does the Virginia Tech shooting not count here in the USA as a school shooting cuz it was at a University?

In the Monash University shooting he clearly attempted to murder several people, but was unable to complete his task because he was tackled by classmates.

dude,it's totally a school shooting

 

[LTC8K6]

Those are the same video, so not another way to "bump fire".

Nor do I understand what I see. Is the shooter pushing the gun away from himself and the gun recoil causes another shot?

Yes. You can also do the same thing with just your finger, but it's much less accurate.

Sorry, this was supposed to be the second link. It's a bump-fire stock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?featur...UUWJHDMgKWWvOsdyRF3HPVEw&v=CBoIaZFaduE#t=662s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bump_fire

 

[Kestrel]

To start with, it wasn't a school, it was a university, a huge difference in Australia.

Secondly the only people who mention Monash Uni in the same breath as Port Arthur and Queen St seem to be gun enthusiasts saying "see, see, your gun ban didn't work". Personally I don't consider two deaths a massacre. Would two gun deaths even make the press in the US?

The local press, but not nationwide.

Four people died of gunshots in a murder suicide near Longmont, Colorado last night. I doubt anyone outside the Denver media market has heard about this incident. It didn't even make the front page of the Denver paper.

 

[LTC8K6]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VseNzVcIjtc

"bullet button" mod demo to make an "assault weapon" pass the detachable mag rule.

 

[lionking]

LOL!!!!!


"that doesn't count as a school, that's a university!"

stundie worthy......

does the Virginia Tech shooting not count here in the USA as a school shooting cuz it was at a University?

In the Monash University shooting he clearly attempted to murder several people, but was unable to complete his task because he was tackled by classmates.

dude,it's totally a school shooting

Your ignorance is really showing here. Please find one, just one, Australian who calls a university a school. Monash Uni (my son works there) has a massive number of mature aged and overseas students. Nope, no children.

And two deaths is now a mass killing? Quite pathetic really.

ETA the average age of an Australian Uni student is 27.

http://www.acer.edu.au/media/growth...university-students-but-still-underrepresent/

Knowing the student profile at Monash I expect it to be older.

School? Nope.

 

[LTC8K6]

The local press, but not nationwide.

Four people died of gunshots in a murder suicide near Longmont, Colorado last night. I doubt anyone outside the Denver media market has heard about this incident. It didn't even make the front page of the Denver paper.

There have been 488 murders in Chicago this year as of the last count.

 

[StankApe]

We call our institutions of learning schools lionking. From colleges to kindergartens.

Whether or not it was a "school shooting" is unimportant anyway. Mass killers strike at any number of places: restaurants, malls, movie theaters, schools...etc It's the same crime , only the setting changes.

and considering he had 6 handguns on his waistband, I think it's fair to say he wasn't there to kill 2 specific people at Monash. He was his randomly firing into the classroom while screaming" you never understand me!" He would have killed them all had he not been stopped.

He's a mass killer who was subdued before he killed more people (as it's also starting to look the guy in the Oregon mall shooting may have seen a civilian with a firearm and ducked into a hallway and killed himself).

 

[Autolite]

@ Metullus and Autolite

Re defining the guns to be banned, if you are serious the definition is an issue, then propose a definition or give a reason why one type of weapon should not be included.

The BS both of you are trying to pull is to challenge the use of particular terms. That is a phony distraction.

Banning, restricting or prohibiting any particular type of firearm will not solve the problem (nor will an ammunition capacity limit). Those with criminal intent just ignore such laws. Canada already knows this because similar laws have been in force there for several years without effect. The 'distraction' is the false sense of security it gives those unable to see the ruse.

I will concede that these bans and limits could work if you can give me a rational reason why you think they would be effective in the United States even though they weren't in Canada...