School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
IanS said:
Mike - please, lets not argue about this any further, because it's a bit of a sidetrack. BUT - it is certainly not as you just said "a separate issue" if those target shooting guns are kept loaded in peoples homes! ... and that really is an unarguable fact.

Put it another way - target shooting itself may be (or seem) entirely harmless. But the guns you are using for it are very far from harmless ... and when those guns are kept in your own home, then at any moment you or anyone else can very easliy take those same guns and shoot people instead of targets!
Click to expand...

Just wanna throw this out there: I have been around gun owners (myself included) most of my life. In my experience, owners are almost obsessively cautious with the safe storage and use of firearms. Long guns in particular are not laying around loaded. Ever. And this is important- owners tend to be responsible people, not crackpots who are ready to kill at the drop of a hat. In a country with hundreds of millions of firearms, there are about 33,000 +/- gun deaths, most suicides by handgun and a good chunk involving gang violence/street crimes. The massively overwhelming majority of owners commit no gun crimes of any kind. The problem really is keeping the firearms out of the hands of the loose cannons; the vast majority of owners enjoy their sports safely.

And I get that you don't want to beat this to death, but my daughter enjoyed archery in school. She was not training to kill anything and never has. Olympic biathalon athletes are also not training to become snow-snipers and assassins. Target shooting of any kind can really be a stand-alone sport.
 
ProBonoShill said:
"One of the nation’s largest sports retailers, Dick’s Sporting Goods, said Wednesday morning it was immediately ending sales of all assault-style rifles in its stores.

The retailer also said that it would no longer sell high-capacity magazines and that it would not sell any gun to anyone under 21 years of age, regardless of local laws."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/...r-will-stop-selling-assault-style-rifles.html

Good for them.
Click to expand...
That will cause sales and profits to go up at Cabela's and Bass Pro Shops.
 
3point14 said:
The fundamental purpose of running, on the African plains, was to catch lunch. Do you think today's modern runners are training to catch lunch?
Click to expand...


I doubt if that's actually true though - the fundamental purpose of humans running was not to catch lunch ... the ability of humans to run was something that was always used for many different practical reasons.

Also, running was not a piece of technology that was invented and developed for a specific purpose (as is the case with guns). So that analogy is totally misplaced.
 
MikeG said:
I'll stop when you stop Ian.
Target practise is entirely harmless (not seems to be), and is often, if not generally, done for its own sake (ie to be better at target practise). This is entirely a separate matter from the safe storage of guns. We agree on that, but you, for some reason, twisted it up with target practise, as well as twisting shotguns and clay pigeons in with your confused narrative. If you want to stop chasing down this rabbit hole, I am content to stop pointing out your errors. I'd much rather be discussing the stupidity of having semi-automatic weapons in the hands of people who shouldn't have them.
Click to expand...


OK, so you just want an endless argument, despite the seriousness of the subject. Waste of everyone's time then.
 
IanS said:
I doubt if that's actually true though - the fundamental purpose of humans running was not to catch lunch ... the ability of humans to run was something that was always used for many different practical reasons.
Click to expand...

Which of those original purposes do you think modern runners are training for these days?

Also, running was not a piece of technology that was invented and developed for a specific purpose (as is the case with guns). So that analogy is totally misplaced.
Click to expand...

I don't really think this makes any difference.
 
Last edited:
IanS said:
OK, so you just want an endless argument, despite the seriousness of the subject. Waste of everyone's time then.
Click to expand...

No, I don't want you stuffing up the sound arguments for gun control by making really silly ones. If you make silly ones, I'll refute them. If you don't, I wont.
 
Thermal said:
Just wanna throw this out there: I have been around gun owners (myself included) most of my life. In my experience, owners are almost obsessively cautious with the safe storage and use of firearms. Long guns in particular are not laying around loaded. Ever. And this is important- owners tend to be responsible people, not crackpots who are ready to kill at the drop of a hat. In a country with hundreds of millions of firearms, there are about 33,000 +/- gun deaths, most suicides by handgun and a good chunk involving gang violence/street crimes. The massively overwhelming majority of owners commit no gun crimes of any kind. The problem really is keeping the firearms out of the hands of the loose cannons; the vast majority of owners enjoy their sports safely.

And I get that you don't want to beat this to death, but my daughter enjoyed archery in school. She was not training to kill anything and never has. Olympic biathalon athletes are also not training to become snow-snipers and assassins. Target shooting of any kind can really be a stand-alone sport.
Click to expand...


Sure, to almost all of that. But just look at your last point (highlighted) - target shooting certainly can be, and often is practiced as a stand alone sport. But that does not change two facts about it - (1) people who keep guns in their homes just for target shooting, certainly do have lethal weapons in their home which they or anyone else in the house can very easily use to kill people with ... and just because at one time in their life they have absolutely no intention ever to shoot at anyone, that certainly does not mean that changes in their mental health or all sorts of other personal circumstances cannot occur to completely change what they decide to do with that immediate access to their loaded guns ... the guns are kept for shooting just at targets, but they certainly can very easily be used to shoot at and kill people.

(2) the point of target shooting, or any training to shoot more accurately with any lethal weapon (inc. a long bow or a crossbow, for example), is at it's most fundamental & original level, really all about being able to use a lethal weapon of war more effectively. I completely accept that is not what most target shooters ever intend or ever think about (and I don't think I have ever said or implied otherwise) ... but just because target shooters and other sport shooters do not think about or really have any interest in what the fundamental purpose or original reason for such target shooting was, does not change the fact that that it is what the sport/hobby is really about ... it's about becoming more skilled at shooting accurately with a deadly weapon.

I am just trying to point out that even with something like target shooting, the origins of why we do that are not as benign as some might idly think. And more importantly – the ownership of loaded guns at home for any purpose, inc. simple non-threatening target shooting, nevertheless still represents a very obvious lethal problem just waiting to happen.
 
3point14 said:
Which of those original purposes do you think modern runners are training for these days?



I don't really think this makes any difference.
Click to expand...


Your analogy was completely wrong/misplaced - the running in your analogy was never a lethal weapon specifically designed and manufactured to kill people.
 
ProBonoShill said:
"One of the nation’s largest sports retailers, Dick’s Sporting Goods, said Wednesday morning it was immediately ending sales of all assault-style rifles in its stores.

The retailer also said that it would no longer sell high-capacity magazines and that it would not sell any gun to anyone under 21 years of age, regardless of local laws."

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/28/...r-will-stop-selling-assault-style-rifles.html

Good for them.
Click to expand...
They already only had 35 stores selling assault style rifles after Sandy Hook. That's from a total of 600 Dick's stores.

BBC News said:
Dick's Sporting Goods, which has more than 600 shops, said it would no longer sell assault-style rifles, and backed "common sense gun reform"...

No longer selling assault-style rifles (The company had stopped selling such weapons after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting but 35 shops run by a subsidiary had continued to do so.)...
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43223279
 
IanS said:
Your analogy was completely wrong/misplaced - the running in your analogy was never a lethal weapon specifically designed and manufactured to kill people.
Click to expand...



I'm struggling with your guiding principle here. Does your thinking regarding the original purpose of things still being part of the activity apply in any other area than firearms?

Let's try this one:


Olympic javelin throwers, for example, are they practicing hunting mammoths or possibly for war?
 
IanS said:
Sure, to almost all of that. But just look at your last point (highlighted) - target shooting certainly can be, and often is practiced as a stand alone sport. But that does not change two facts about it - (1) people who keep guns in their homes just for target shooting, certainly do have lethal weapons in their home which they or anyone else in the house can very easily use to kill people with ... and just because at one time in their life they have absolutely no intention ever to shoot at anyone, that certainly does not mean that changes in their mental health or all sorts of other personal circumstances cannot occur to completely change what they decide to do with that immediate access to their loaded guns ... the guns are kept for shooting just at targets, but they certainly can very easily be used to shoot at and kill people.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and I think that a firearm ID should be renewed annually and tied to a database for mental health treatments and violent crimes. The NRA fights this, I gather because of how subjectively the definitions may be applied. I really don't think, however, that your average responsible and reasonable person suddenly transforms into a killer. I have been furiously angry at times, with a shotgun and shells easily accessible. Going on a shooting spree did not even occur to me. Homicidal rampages are not an option to a normal person, even in extreme circumstances. There is a very small percentage of people willing to kill humans, available weapons or not. Treating level-headed sportsmen like potential psychos perhaps fans the fires of the gun debate.

(2) the point of target shooting, or any training to shoot more accurately with any lethal weapon (inc. a long bow or a crossbow, for example), is at it's most fundamental & original level, really all about being able to use a lethal weapon of war more effectively. I completely accept that is not what most target shooters ever intend or ever think about (and I don't think I have ever said or implied otherwise) ... but just because target shooters and other sport shooters do not think about or really have any interest in what the fundamental purpose or original reason for such target shooting was, does not change the fact that that it is what the sport/hobby is really about ... it's about becoming more skilled at shooting accurately with a deadly weapon.

I am just trying to point out that even with something like target shooting, the origins of why we do that are not as benign as some might idly think. And more importantly – the ownership of loaded guns at home for any purpose, inc. simple non-threatening target shooting, nevertheless still represents a very obvious lethal problem just waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

Oh, target shooters are well aware of the original purpose of guns, just as a teenage archer knows what a bow and arrow were originally used for. The analogy is exact here. When I used to shoot (haven't in 20 years), it was for hunting. I practiced with my shotgun to be safe and effective. It then became challenging to shoot with buddies, to see who was the most skilled, a fairly natural extension to target shooting. I think that progression is true for many sport shooters.

You seem to imply that going from responsible shooter to homicidal whack-job is a small jump. I would opine that it is a massive leap, more like a motor vehicle driver snapping and deciding to mow people down with their car (no strawman here, I think they are very comparable). A lot of responsible gun owners resent being characterized as potential murderers, and that fuels the increasing polarity on the issue.
 
Thermal said:
Just wanna throw this out there: I have been around gun owners (myself included) most of my life. In my experience, owners are almost obsessively cautious with the safe storage and use of firearms. Long guns in particular are not laying around loaded. Ever. And this is important- owners tend to be responsible people, not crackpots who are ready to kill at the drop of a hat. In a country with hundreds of millions of firearms, there are about 33,000 +/- gun deaths, most suicides by handgun and a good chunk involving gang violence/street crimes. The massively overwhelming majority of owners commit no gun crimes of any kind. The problem really is keeping the firearms out of the hands of the loose cannons; the vast majority of owners enjoy their sports safely.

And I get that you don't want to beat this to death, but my daughter enjoyed archery in school. She was not training to kill anything and never has. Olympic biathalon athletes are also not training to become snow-snipers and assassins. Target shooting of any kind can really be a stand-alone sport.
Click to expand...

Not the real issue. All self-defense and sporting use of weapons can be fairly licensed and regulated, as is the practice in many places.

The real issue is the sale of assault weapons and large magazines, support for which comes from the loonies thinking they might need to overthrow the government any minute now. Ironically, the number one threat of bona fide political tyranny in the US comes from those who say they want to avoid it. And it is these bright lights who feel they must have an inalienable right to carry this sort of weaponry, making them leery of treating guns as a licensed privilege instead of a right. They also, in passing, reject majority rule, as no government, no matter how democratically legitimate, may interfere with any of their cherished notions in any way, shape, or form. Hell, that would be genuine "will of the People" crap; can't have that!
 
All this discussion about rights, needs, wants and what can be done, waste of time.

The USA is too fractured as a society for it to get together, agree and implement a solution. Think of all the gun laws already in place, they don't make any difference.

There are too many guns already in the wrong hands, people who will kill before they give them up, that any law changes are not going to make a difference.

Sorry, but time spent discussing coping strategies and planning to keep yourself plus your nearest and dearest safe, is time not wasted.
 
Thermal said:
Just wanna throw this out there: I have been around gun owners (myself included) most of my life. In my experience, owners are almost obsessively cautious with the safe storage and use of firearms. Long guns in particular are not laying around loaded. Ever. And this is important- owners tend to be responsible people, not crackpots who are ready to kill at the drop of a hat. In a country with hundreds of millions of firearms, there are about 33,000 +/- gun deaths, most suicides by handgun and a good chunk involving gang violence/street crimes. The massively overwhelming majority of owners commit no gun crimes of any kind. The problem really is keeping the firearms out of the hands of the loose cannons; the vast majority of owners enjoy their sports safely.

And I get that you don't want to beat this to death, but my daughter enjoyed archery in school. She was not training to kill anything and never has. Olympic biathalon athletes are also not training to become snow-snipers and assassins. Target shooting of any kind can really be a stand-alone sport.
Click to expand...

The problem isn't generally long guns - they're not that suitable for massacres (although it has happened before).

The problem (by definition) isn't responsible gun owners. There is a question about who is responsible and who is likely to become irresponsible, but that's different.

There are sufficient accidents to say that a sizeable minority of gun owners are irresponsible, if not downright dangerous.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
Not the real issue. All self-defense and sporting use of weapons can be fairly licensed and regulated, as is the practice in many places.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and I have been making that same argument for many posts. I live in one of the most strictly regulated states, and think regulation should be yet tighter. The post you responded to was a sidebar argument to the perceived easy transition of sportsman to murderer, which I disagree with.

The real issue is the sale of assault weapons and large magazines, support for which comes from the loonies thinking they might need to overthrow the government any minute now. Ironically, the number one threat of bona fide political tyranny in the US comes from those who say they want to avoid it. And it is these bright lights who feel they must have an inalienable right to carry this sort of weaponry, making them leery of treating guns as a licensed privilege instead of a right. They also, in passing, reject majority rule, as no government, no matter how democratically legitimate, may interfere with any of their cherished notions in any way, shape, or form. Hell, that would be genuine "will of the People" crap; can't have that!
Click to expand...

I would take it a step further and ban all semi autos, maybe excepting the .22. Their main civilian use is convenience, weighed against the massive potential for abuse. And agreed, I think the majority want reasonable regulation. DC v Keller affirmed private ownership as well as rights to regulate. It needs to happen nationwide.
 
William Parcher said:
That will cause sales and profits to go up at Cabela's and Bass Pro Shops.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly however, the Dick's stores I've been to are far more centered on selling sports equipment for other sports e.g. clothing, balls, golf clubs, running shoes. So it may not cut into Dick's profits much and could possibly increase sales of other sports merchandise from the majority of people who support those positions.
 
Hlafordlaes said:
The real issue is the sale of assault weapons and large magazines, support for which comes from the loonies thinking they might need to overthrow the government any minute now. Ironically, the number one threat of bona fide political tyranny in the US comes from those who say they want to avoid it. And it is these bright lights who feel they must have an inalienable right to carry this sort of weaponry, making them leery of treating guns as a licensed privilege instead of a right. They also, in passing, reject majority rule, as no government, no matter how democratically legitimate, may interfere with any of their cherished notions in any way, shape, or form. Hell, that would be genuine "will of the People" crap; can't have that!
Click to expand...

This sings to me. I work in Federal Land management. We have had two well publicized incidents of well-armed "patriots" using military-looking weapons to facilitate lawbreaking. The leadership pretty well got away with it, although there were about a dozen convictions of the lesser followers. They favor the ones that look the most military-ish, even if it is mostly just superficial differences with others.

I don't advocate taking away AR-15, semi-auto AK-47, and the various clones and imitations. That would lead to violence.

I am not terribly motivated to ban new sales of them to non-military/LE users. However, they are popular with the militia movement and have been used to levy threats against the agencies I've worked for as well as my coworkers. Based on that history, I would not lose sleep or be the least bit disappointed if bans on new sales actually happened. I don't advocate for it, but I don't much object to it either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom