School shooting: but don't mention guns!

[Magico07]

Will gun control protect kids?

My problem with the current thinking is that, while it probably won't hurt to add some gun control legislation, it may not work either. It depends which problem your trying to solve.

Gun control makes perfect sense, if part of your thinking is based on the idea that the US as a whole, has some collective responsibility for these children's deaths, due to the fact that this particular loony used legally owned weapons. So, if the idea is to ensure that the next massacre, can't hit you with associated guilt, by forcing the loony to use illegally held weapons, then that's fine.

However, if the idea is to prevent the targeting & murder of children by loonies with guns, then may I suggest an alternative idea?

Ballistic shields can be deployed in schools, ideally with a trained security guard. I would suggest the security guard(s) be armed with non-lethal weapons - mace, pepper spray, Tasers. In that way, they could take action to protect children, regardless of the legality of the weapons used.

A type iv ballistic shield, mounted on wheels, would be ideal for use in the smooth floored corridors of most schools, able to stop even armour-piercing rounds and big & bulky enough to discourage those of a criminal persuasion, who might find other uses for it.

Currently, I believe that such items are solely employed by the police & military & I do not doubt that such equipment would be expensive to deploy. I have no idea what the cost of doing this would be, but I suspect that it would NOT exceed the value of any child's life saved.

 

[zeggman]

It is also easy to make a higher capacity magazine with a hacksaw and tape.

I expect, though, that it's also easier to make a magazine that will jam. While it may be that limiting the size of magazines sold will not stop spree killers from murdering to their heart's content if everything goes as they plan, it might make more cases veer off plan. If a magazine jams, or a killer has to stop to change magazines, victims in waiting will have opportunities to escape or fight back which they might not otherwise have. Limiting magazine size also doesn't seem like it would seriously inconvenience sport shooters.

 

[joesixpack]

Revolvers either require a separate cocking action or have much higher trigger pulls than a semi automatic. The semi automatic is probably a bit faster, especially after firing the sixth round where the revolver has to be reloaded.

Actually, I can reload my seven shot revolver almost as quickly most people can reload a semi-auto pistol. In fact, in some Steel Challenge matches I've shot in, the only people with semi-autos that scored higher than I were the shooters with more experience.

 

[Ambrosia]

A magazine ban just makes another victimless crime.

[...]

The ban will only be a minor inconvenience to criminals and there is no rational reason to believe it will lower the death rate in the country.

I'll agree that circumventing a magazine limit is relatively easy. I'll agree that presently there are a great many magazines that would contravene any such new regulation, though this could be helped with a reasonable lead in time/amnesty on offending magazines were such a rule to be introduced.

I don't agree that there is "no rational reason to believe it would lower the death rate" Why would such a rule have no impact on the death rate? (assuming that enough time had passed so the vast majority of obsolete magazines were no longer in circulation)

Also if an individual took steps to alter their magazine to increase it's capacity, have they not just demonstrated that they are not responsible enough to own a deadly weapon?

If a person taped magazines together for convenience then that wouldn't break this supposed new rule, structurally altering a mag to increase capacity would.

 

[Kestrel]

Actually, I can reload my seven shot revolver almost as quickly most people can reload a semi-auto pistol. In fact, in some Steel Challenge matches I've shot in, the only people with semi-autos that scored higher than I were the shooters with more experience.

Usain Bolt can run faster than I can pedel a bicycle, therefore running is faster than riding a bike?

It's rather silly to assume that spree killers will develop ninja level skills. Especially those like the Aurora and Tucson shooters that only acquired firearms a few weeks before their sprees.

 

[Autolite]

Well whatever gun control laws do get passed they are going to be a compromise between pro gun advocates and anti gun advocates.

Here's an interesting recent article reference the current attitudes in Canada.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/guns-notorious-canadian-mass-shootings-still-not-prohibited-234352117.html

We've been touching on the subject of banning and restricting firearms because of their cosmetic appearance. Here in Canada, they refer to it as the 'scary-looking-gun-ban'. Reading the comments in the attached news article, it's interesting to note that the gun-grabbers are admitting that the goal is not to 'ban all semi-automatics' but only just certain ones.

"Heidi Rathjen, one of Canada's foremost gun-control advocates, says she and others have not called for a ban on all semi-automatics — just some of them."

"But Voth* says there really is no substantial difference between the Ruger Mini-14, and other semi-automatics that are used frequently by hunters.

Even the Bushmaster AR-15, restricted in Canada to gun club enthusiasts with tight licensing requirements, only looks more menacing than other weapons that are unrestricted, he says."

Perhaps I might be missing something. I can't seen to understand how banning or prohibiting a firearm because of what it looks like is going to deter those with criminal intent. Someone help me out here...


*(Alan Voth, a firearms forensics expert and retired veteran of the RCMP.)

 

[LTC8K6]

Revolvers either require a separate cocking action or have much higher trigger pulls than a semi automatic. The semi automatic is probably a bit faster, especially after firing the sixth round where the revolver has to be reloaded.

Not really, a modern S&W revolver has an incredibly slick action, even without being tuned, as this one is.

Reloading is very fast on modern revolvers.

Now, this guy is a pro, but it gives you the idea of how quickly a good revolver can be fired and reloaded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLk1v5bSFPw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI

 

[LTC8K6]

Here's an interesting recent article reference the current attitudes in Canada.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/guns-notorious-canadian-mass-shootings-still-not-prohibited-234352117.html

We've been touching on the subject of banning and restricting firearms because of their cosmetic appearance. Here in Canada, they refer to it as the 'scary-looking-gun-ban'. Reading the comments in the attached news article, it's interesting to note that the gun-grabbers are admitting that the goal is not to 'ban all semi-automatics' but only just certain ones.

"Heidi Rathjen, one of Canada's foremost gun-control advocates, says she and others have not called for a ban on all semi-automatics — just some of them."

"But Voth* says there really is no substantial difference between the Ruger Mini-14, and other semi-automatics that are used frequently by hunters.

Even the Bushmaster AR-15, restricted in Canada to gun club enthusiasts with tight licensing requirements, only looks more menacing than other weapons that are unrestricted, he says."

Perhaps I might be missing something. I can't seen to understand how banning or prohibiting a firearm because of what it looks like is going to deter those with criminal intent. Someone help me out here...


*(Alan Voth, a firearms forensics expert and retired veteran of the RCMP.)

The assault weapons ban was basically all about looks. For 10 years we couldn't buy some rifles because of the way they looked. We could buy the same rifles, that looked different.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, that's probably because self defence is not generally a valid reason for having a firearm in the UK. I don't think the 2nd Amendment says much about that, either. As long as you can get your weapon and ammunition together in time for your militia meeting, there should be no problem.

I don't have any militia meetings, and I don't have any guns for self defense, either.

 

[joesixpack]

Usain Bolt can run faster than I can pedel a bicycle, therefore running is faster than riding a bike?

It's rather silly to assume that spree killers will develop ninja level skills. Especially those like the Aurora and Tucson shooters that only acquired firearms a few weeks before their sprees.

I'm not the Usain Bolt of the shooting sports world. I'm not even the avid amateur of the shooting world. I shot in fewer than 5 matches. It was fun, but not something that held my interest enough to buy a gun for matches (which many of the competitors do) or the two hour drive to the range, or the constant need for more ammo. It's an expensive hobby in many ways.

My point is that it is easy to become adequately proficient with a firearm (revolver or otherwise) to make oneself dangerous to a group of unarmed victims or competently able to defend oneself from an attacker.

 

[Ranb]

Revolvers either require a separate cocking action or have much higher trigger pulls than a semi automatic. The semi automatic is probably a bit faster, especially after firing the sixth round where the revolver has to be reloaded.

Revolvers are available that hold ten rounds and there are also semi-auto revolvers that rotate the cylinder and cock the hammer.

Ranb

 

[rikzilla]

My problem with the current thinking is that, while it probably won't hurt to add some gun control legislation, it may not work either. It depends which problem your trying to solve.

Gun control makes perfect sense, if part of your thinking is based on the idea that the US as a whole, has some collective responsibility for these children's deaths, due to the fact that this particular loony used legally owned weapons. So, if the idea is to ensure that the next massacre, can't hit you with associated guilt, by forcing the loony to use illegally held weapons, then that's fine.

However, if the idea is to prevent the targeting & murder of children by loonies with guns, then may I suggest an alternative idea?

Ballistic shields can be deployed in schools, ideally with a trained security guard. I would suggest the security guard(s) be armed with non-lethal weapons - mace, pepper spray, Tasers. In that way, they could take action to protect children, regardless of the legality of the weapons used.

A type iv ballistic shield, mounted on wheels, would be ideal for use in the smooth floored corridors of most schools, able to stop even armour-piercing rounds and big & bulky enough to discourage those of a criminal persuasion, who might find other uses for it.

Currently, I believe that such items are solely employed by the police & military & I do not doubt that such equipment would be expensive to deploy. I have no idea what the cost of doing this would be, but I suspect that it would NOT exceed the value of any child's life saved.

That is about the best post I've seen on this subject.

Thank you for that.

and welcome to the forum!

-z

 

[DJW]

The assault weapons ban was basically all about looks. For 10 years we couldn't buy some rifles because of the way they looked. We could buy the same rifles, that looked different.

Not to mention the unintended consequences of a poorly legislated law. One example that always made me shake my head was the 10 shot limit. Instead of having people wandering around with "high capacity" 9mm handguns, the industry found ways to get 10 rounds of the more powerful .45 acp into compact handguns.

I owned a Paraordnance P-10 which took a lot of training with to shoot well. I also had 9mm model 1911 which I could shoot in my sleep. Which would I carry? The tradeoff of lower caliber was capacity, so when the gun industry got pushed by the AWB, the high capacity .45 was the better choice.

The trendy gun became the much more powerful .45 acp which required a lot of control and skill to shoot well versus the higher capacity 9mm which needed less work to shoot accurately, ergo you had more dangerous weapons on the street.

 

[Autolite]

The assault weapons ban was basically all about looks. For 10 years we couldn't buy some rifles because of the way they looked. We could buy the same rifles, that looked different.

Personally, I think the AR15 is somewhat silly looking (although that is not intended as slam to their owners).

Actually, I do hold a current and valid Canadian Restricted Firearms Possession/Acquisition License that grants the option to legally acquire an AR15 but I just don't seem to have any inclination to own one.

Being ex-military, I'm familiar with the AR15's 'evil' cousin (the automatic/semi-automatic Canadian C7). I was never overly impressed with that rifle because it seemed to jam often and was less rugged than the battle rifle it replaced (the old Fabrique Nationale FNC1A1).

Perhaps it's this familiarity that's leaves me unimpressed with the AR15...

 

[The Don]

Most of that is common sense in general.

The problem is that it sorta' conflicts with having a gun for self defense in the home, and would not go over too well in the US.

If, for example, I accept that I need to have my pistol under tight security, and have the ammunition securely stored also, it undermines my excuse for having the pistol in the first place.

It's not much use for a self defense situation if it takes me five minutes to get it ready to fire, imo. If someone is breaking in, or is already in my house, the pistol might as well not be there if it's locked away behind at least 2 levels of security.

There are ways to secure a pistol and still have it available reasonably quickly. They don't appear to meet those UK guidelines, though.

I had a friend who had his gun collection in a gun safe. He came back one day to find it open and his collection gone. After some research, we learned that the instructions to open almost every make and model of gun safe were available on the internet...

I agree, securing a gun makes it effectively useless for home defence.

I'm not sure whether the number of deaths and injuries which happen as a result of having a gun readily to hand (either by accident or intentionally in the heat of the moment) exceeds the number of deaths and injuries avoided as a result of having guns available for home defence.

In other threads I've seen reference to "millions of lives saved" as a result of having home defence firearms in the U.S. but no research to back it up.

Having guns unavailable for home defence may have a net benefit.

 

[Nessie]

You forgot to mention South Africa, Pakistan, and Ceylon. Are they enjoying the "British Way of Life^TM"? I notice the English here have a pretty wide streak of ethnocentricism. It's a very selective list of former dominions that you like to point to as successes. You all seem just far enough removed from your absolutely brutal colonial past to look at it through rose colo(u)red glasses. That lovely "British Way of Life^TM" came at great expense to those on who's backs it was built upon.

I did not forget to mention those countries. I did not mention them because they are not similar to the make up of the USA, whereas Canada, Australia and New Zealand are.

The USA has shown itself to be a fail of epic proportions when it comes to gun culture. The sticking plaster solutions such as wheeled ballistic shields in school corridors are hilarious to read.

A society that looks to armed teachers, ballistic shields, gunman amok evasion exercises and debates is it better to run or hide needs to be a society that accepts it has failed and failed very badly.

 

[Autolite]

Revolvers are available that hold ten rounds and there are also semi-auto revolvers that rotate the cylinder and cock the hammer.

Ranb

I believe it's the self-loading feature (chambering) of a semi-automatic firearm that qualifies it for that classification. The revolver you're talking about must have the rounds chambered by hand before use, does it not???

 

[rikzilla]

The assault weapons ban was basically all about looks. For 10 years we couldn't buy some rifles because of the way they looked. We could buy the same rifles, that looked different.

However,...our friends to the north are clearly onto something good when you look at crime stats between places like Detroit and Windsor, or Vancouver vs Seattle. I agree that scary looking guns are the ones we see on the news every night in scenes from Afghanistan, Syria, or even Mexico. We are human beings. Being scared of scary-shaped things has saved our pattern-seeking selves since we came down out of the trees. Getting rid of weapons based on their looks isn't rational...but it's a start in the right direction. Why you ask? Because people with issues tend to buy these kinds of penis implants, and they are the very first guns this "gun-grabber" would grab.

The fact is that despite what some folks say we can make this country a little safer. Other nations have done it. The 2nd amendment mentions state militias "well regulated" and says that they are "essential to the existence of a free state". Well they may have been then, but they don't even exist now...and even if they did you would not be much of a challenge to serious militarized law enforcers much less the US Army! No, the second is simply obsolete. These weapons, scary or run of the mill looking, simply did not exist back then, much like state militias don't exist now.

What real change takes is political will. We've either got it, or we don't. We can either live like people in other developed nations, or we can run frantic from one hardened location to another.

-z

 

[BenBurch]

A light rifle is my understanding. One that is convenient to carry, designed for close in shooting. The weapon used was based on a military design for close combat conditions. The owner was a survivalist who presumably was preparing for urban combat. If you want to control vermin, a standard hunting rifle will do the job, but won't be as convenient to carry around.

A carbine is a very specific type of weapon. It is a lighter, shorter weapon (compared with the rifles of the mid 19th century) with a lower muzzle velocity designed to be carried horseback. A cavalry weapon originally. Suitable for close-in fighting.

 

[jimbob]

An "assault weapon" fires at exactly the same rate as a revolver.

Is this per minute? What magazine capacity are you talking about?