School shooting Florida

[P.J. Denyer]

I assure you in my part of the country there are plenty of shotguns and rifles used for hunting and pest control.

Likewise, out here in the wilds of 20 minutes outside the M25.

 

[Reheat]

My understanding is that the US forces received the requisite military training when they enlisted, as did the military of other countries. It was not an "armed populace" any more than the British Army was an armed populace. Are you therefore telling us that if gun laws in the US were more like those of other countries, the USA would be useless as an ally? I find such a suggestion insulting to the USA.

It's easier to ask for clarification than it is to build a worthless insulting strawman.

Of course, the military receives training. It's easier to train someone who has grown up with and is familiar with firearms.

Being AF, I did not receive extensive training at all. However, I qualified as expert both with the M-16 and with pistol and continued to maintain that level over a career. Most others with little previous familiarity either had to receive additional training or barely qualified at all.

Both Army and Marines receive much more extensive training, but colleagues have told me it's much easier and faster to train someone with experience with firearms than not.

The other side of a disarmed citizenry is that there will be a greatly reduced capacity firearms industry. That can not be built over night when it's desperately needed today. Civilian small arms manufacturing and military arms are similar enough that the same factories with tooling can produce both.

ETA: I see Giz beat me to additional clarification on this last aspect of a disarmed populace.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You seem to be under the faulty impression that the fact that this shooter wasn't stopped by a "good guy with a gun" then that means no shooter will be stopped by a "good guy with a gun." Which is demonstrably false.

I said nothing of the sort.

Fine. The voters didn't rush in and save anyone, either. You shouldn't rely on the voters to protect you.

Better?

That's a ridiculous sequitur.

It's hard to have a discussion if you are going to distort what I actually said and cram it into your preconceived POV.

 

[Grizzly Adams]

I said nothing of the sort.

No, you said exactly the sort when you claimed "the 'good guy with a gun' hero is a fantasy and needs to be stated as such." It is false this is a fantasy, and examples can be provided.

That's a ridiculous sequitur.

It's hard to have a discussion if you are going to distort what I actually said and cram it into your preconceived POV.

You're the one who wants to quibble about how the government is actually the voters. You shouldn't rely on the government to protect you and, by your insistence, you shouldn't rely on the voters to protect you either.

 

[Lurch]

Soldier in the US do not come from the jungle, they come from the civilian population.



Get a clue or two. They are cheap and freely offered. Do you have any idea how long it takes to train a person unfamiliar with firearms? You obviously don't. In addition, based on the tone, you're really not interested in being educated. Uh, bye.

But the Armed Forces takes in any number of recruits who've never handled firearms, and trains them up in the same period as those having had prior experience. Or does the US demand that all recruits already have weapons experience? And besides, someone who'd plinked with a .22, or birded with a shotgun, or hunted with a .303 still has something to learn about SMGs, MGs, grenade launchers, ATWs, etc., etc. The difference between a city slicker tyro and a rural crack shot is not so great that the Army can't get reasonably close to equalization--or at least standardization--after a couple or few months of intensive drill.

 

[Darat]

Incorrect. The fix is to take responsibility for your own personal safety. The fix is to not delegate the responsibility for your protection to an entity that has no more interest in your survival than "optics" and whatever meager contribution you may make to the tax base.

At what age should the children start to wear loaded ready to use guns?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, you said exactly the sort when you claimed "the 'good guy with a gun' hero is a fantasy and needs to be stated as such." It is false this is a fantasy, and examples can be provided.


You're the one who wants to quibble about how the government is actually the voters. You shouldn't rely on the government to protect you and, by your insistence, you shouldn't rely on the voters to protect you either.

The good guy with a gun fantasy is in a large proportion of the movies and TV shows you and everyone else have been raised on. Some of us recognize Clint Eastwood and Matt Damon play fictional characters and some people like Trump and Wayne LaPierre apparently don't.

It's a fantasy that the 'good guy with the gun' is a valid solution to mass shooters. Exceptions to the rule don't change that fact.

The problem with your assertion about voters being a solution is I said clearly this is not going to be a quick solution. You seem to think I suggested it would instantly fix things.

You've added your own views to my post, completely changing what I said.

I never said there were no cases of one shooter stopping another. I said the idea good guys with guns were a panacea to a very complex problem of mass shooters or even school shooters was a fantasy. If only Clint Eastwood had been there.

And yes, we voters are the government. We need to take it back from the gun manufacturers and their NRA front-persons.

 

[Reheat]

That last paragraph; what a doozie! I'm speechless against what shall remain unsaid...

Ashamed to have to ask for firearms at the very beginning of WWII? Is that why you use the term doozie? What's the prevent that from happening again?

 

[Darat]

Soldier in the US do not come from the jungle, they come from the civilian population.



Get a clue or two. They are cheap and freely offered. Do you have any idea how long it takes to train a person unfamiliar with firearms? You obviously don't. In addition, based on the tone, you're really not interested in being educated. Uh, bye.

You do realise that the UK has an armed military? And that most USA folk don't own a gun?

 

[cullennz]

Ashamed to have to ask for firearms at the very beginning of WWII? Is that why you use the term doozie? What's the prevent that from happening again?

You argument is now that citizens need guns in case the US is invaded by force and you don't want to run out?

 

[Darat]

You argument is now that citizens need guns in case the US is invaded by force and you don't want to run out?

It appears to be that the argument is that the children being murdered in school is a neccessary price to pay in case the UK requires donations of firearms in the light of world War 3.

As one of those UK folk who may need this charity can I make it very clear that if Germany is on the verge of invading the UK mainland again I will not expect any USA citizen to send me their guns. With that assurance I do hope this will now mean it will no longer be necessary for USA children to be massacred in their schools.

 

[Lurch]

About that argument of civilian arms manufacturing and supply ensuring a ready-to-go military when the balloon goes up...

It was pointed out a bit earlier here how Britain, after the Great war, largely disarmed. This was due to being financially destitute and (naively) thinking no significant conflict should soon arise after the mechanized slaughter of 1914-1918. The scarcity of effective guns at the opening of Round 2, and the initial begging for arms from abroad, would seem to be used as an example of the perils of a 'disarmed' citizenry.

Is this at all valid in today's world? Least of all America, whose arms manufacturers are keeping the world's largest military (by *far*), and many other customers to boot, well in the game. Do civilian-oriented guns make *that* much of a difference, where much effort goes into multitudes of gun variants not used by military forces? The *only* reason for civvie arming is for further profits from a new market. It has bugger all to do with the military of today.

 

[Reheat]

And that most USA folk don't own a gun?

If you believe the polls I have a certain bridge for sale. I don't own any either because I hang up on anyone who asks.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Well, there was:

———
After the fall of France and the Dunkirk evacuation in 1940, Britain found itself short of arms for island defense. The Home Guard was forced to drill with canes, umbrellas, spears, pikes, and clubs. When citizens could find a gun, it was generally a sporting shotgun, which was ill-suited for most types of military use because of its short range and bulky ammunition. British government advertisements in United States newspapers and in magazines such as American Rifleman begged readers to "Send A Gun to Defend a British Home--British civilians, faced with threat of invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." The ads pleaded for "Pistols, Rifles, Revolvers, Shotguns and Binoculars from American civilians who wish to answer the call and aid in defense of British homes."[77] As

Prime Minister Winston Churchill's book Their Finest Hour details the arrival of the shipments. Churchill personally supervised the deliveries to ensure that they were sent on fast ships, and distributed first to Home Guard members in coastal zones. Churchill thought that the American donations (p.418)were "entirely on a different level from anything we have transported across the Atlantic except for the Canadian division itself." Churchill warned an advisor that "the loss of these rifles and field-guns [if the transport ships were sunk by Nazi submarines] would be a disaster of the first order." He later recalled that "[w]hen the ships from America approached our shores with their priceless arms, special trains were waiting in all the ports to receive their cargoes." "The Home Guard in every county, in every town, in every village, sat up all through the night to receive them .... By the end of July we were an armed nation ... a lot of our men and some women had weapons in their hands."

———

And?

 

[Reheat]

About that argument of civilian arms manufacturing and supply ensuring a ready-to-go military when the balloon goes up...

It was pointed out a bit earlier here how Britain, after the Great war, largely disarmed. This was due to being financially destitute and (naively) thinking no significant conflict should soon arise after the mechanized slaughter of 1914-1918. The scarcity of effective guns at the opening of Round 2, and the initial begging for arms from abroad, would seem to be used as an example of the perils of a 'disarmed' citizenry.

Is this at all valid in today's world? Least of all America, whose arms manufacturers are keeping the world's largest military (by *far*), and many other customers to boot, well in the game. Do civilian-oriented guns make *that* much of a difference, where much effort goes into multitudes of gun variants not used by military forces? The *only* reason for civvie arming is for further profits from a new market. It has bugger all to do with the military of today.

'k, if you say so.

 

[Leftus]

.

It's a fantasy that the 'good guy with the gun' is a valid solution to mass shooters. Exceptions to the rule don't change that fact.

Then why is everyone so upset that the Deputie(s) didn't go into the school? If you were to see someone walking into a school with a gun, do you call people with guns or not?

The real fantasy is that we can make guns somehow disappear. When the police, from the FBI to the cop on the beat fail so completely, the potential victim is the last line of defense. In a situation where those who supposedly had the duty to protect, fail to do so, and it's down to the bad guy with a gun, what would you arm them with? A warm smile and a hearty handshake isn't going to work.

 

[smartcooky]

Just remember there might come a day when you need us heathen Americans again just like you did a couple of times in the last Century. There is a down side to disarming the populace.

That is just such a massive misrepresentation of facts, its actually a flat out lie

I don't know where to begin, so how about this

Question: How many privately owned guns, owned by private citizens, held under the Second Amendment, ended up in being legitimately used by US soldiers in WW1 or WW2

Answer: ZERO, NADA, not a single one.

US Soldiers were armed with the following smallarms in WW2

Pistols (manual and semi-automatic)
Colt Model 1903 Pocket Hammerless
Colt M1911A1
Colt/S&W M1917 revolver
Colt Official Police (Colt M1927 Aka "Colt Commando")
Smith & Wesson M&P

Submachine Guns
Thompson submachine gun (.45 ACP)
M3 submachine gun (.45 ACP)
M50 Reising submachine gun (.45 ACP)

Rifles
M1903 Springfield (.30-'06)
M1 Garand (.30-'06)
M1917 Enfield rifle (.30-'06)
M1941 Johnson rifle (.30-'06)
M1 and M1A1 carbine

Shotguns
Winchester M1897
Winchester M12
Browning Auto-5
Remington 31
Stevens M520-30
Ithaca 37


These were all guns supplied by the US government, the very same US government that gun-nuts claim want to take their guns away.

SIDENOTE

I think you bloody Yanks need reminding from time to time that you were two years late into both wars, and the second time, you only joined after the Japs caught you with your pants around your ankles and handed you your arse at the same time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Then why is everyone so upset that the Deputie(s) didn't go into the school? If you were to see someone walking into a school with a gun, do you call people with guns or not?

The real fantasy is that we can make guns somehow disappear. When the police, from the FBI to the cop on the beat fail so completely, the potential victim is the last line of defense. In a situation where those who supposedly had the duty to protect, fail to do so, and it's down to the bad guy with a gun, what would you arm them with? A warm smile and a hearty handshake isn't going to work.

Why are we upset the fantasy didn't play out like it does in the movies?

 

[crescent]

Then why is everyone so upset that the Deputie(s) didn't go into the school? If you were to see someone walking into a school with a gun, do you call people with guns or not?

The real fantasy is that we can make guns somehow disappear. When the police, from the FBI to the cop on the beat fail so completely, the potential victim is the last line of defense. In a situation where those who supposedly had the duty to protect, fail to do so, and it's down to the bad guy with a gun, what would you arm them with? A warm smile and a hearty handshake isn't going to work.

Yeah. I forgot, who wants that? Who thinks that? NOBODY, that's who.

Prove me wrong, find a cite. Find a cite showing people think we can make the guns disappear.

 

[Reheat]

That is just such a massive misrepresentation of facts, its actually a flat out lie

Well, it's humorous you didn't list a lie, but made a false bravado statement anyway.

Question: How many privately owned guns, owned by private citizens, held under the Second Amendment, ended up in being legitimately used by US soldiers in WW1 or WW2

Answer: ZERO, NADA, not a single one.

I don't know and neither do you. Speaking of a lie.....

US Soldiers were armed with the following smallarms in WW2

Oh, you're one of those who can google questions, are you?

These were all guns supplied by the US government, the very same US government that gun-nuts claim want to take their guns away.

Apparently, you don't realize there are different Departments of the Government. It is not as monolithic as you imply.

I think you bloody Yanks need reminding from time to time that you were two years late into both wars, and the second time, you only joined after the Japs caught you with your pants around your ankles and handed you your arse at the same time.

You say this as if the US has an obligation to join all European squabbles at the very first sign of conflict.

Even after the destruction at Pearl Harbor there was still no obligation to join the war in Europe. I'd guess most who now don't speak German are mighty thankful we did.

BTW, your tone is bordering on belligerency. I suggest you tone it down and calm down a bit...


ETA: I can not speak of WWII, but I have known folks who carried privately owned sidearms in every conflict since the Korean War. During the Vietnam era some folks carried non-Govt owned SMG's. Some special forces units all have their own private firearm. Yes, there may be Army Regulations that prohibits it, but in some units that is ignored...