School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
MikeG said:
Conveniently taking poor people, gang members and criminals out of the equation. You don't get to decide what someone else (IanS) means when they use a term.
Click to expand...

What??? What the hell are you talking about???

IanS said 'homeowners'. In context, a person's real estate holdings are completely irrelevant. So I assume he means a regular person. This doesn't take anyone out of the equation, it adds them in, as I assume is the intent.

Seriously, this is the argument now? Real estate portfolios of murderers?
 
thaiboxerken said:
It's called a gunshow loophole because people know they can go to a gunshow to find a private seller to buy a gun, to avoid a background check.
Click to expand...
But they can go anywhere to do that; you've heard of this thing called the internet right?. Several years ago on this forum it was a "fact" that no one had to get a bkgd check at a gun show. Avoiding a bkgd check is not exploiting a loophole in federal law, it is normally actual compliance with federal law.
 
Last edited:
Thermal said:
:confused: No offense is taken. I think the discussion is pretty cordial. But please, how am I misreading this?

'The vast mass of US shootings are when a homeowner has simply taken his guns and decided for various reasons to shoot people.'
Click to expand...


Thermal – we are indeed having a perfectly cordial and constructive discussion, but for some reason you are taking offence at something which just isn't there my posts. Maybe you have been influenced by some earlier US posters here who complained that UK posters were being too critical of the US people in general (though I made clear 20 pages back that I was certainly not doing that). But - I have made it repeatedly clear that I am not (and never have) singled out American people or US gun owners as being any more liable to being drunk or using recreational drugs, than people in the UK or anywhere else.

But it should be really very obvious that alcohol intoxication and instant access to loaded guns is a lethal disaster just waiting to happen. And the reason why that is likely to be a particular problem in the US (rather than in the UK, for example), is simply because there are so many more people who are gun owners in the US, and with so many more guns of all sorts all kept in their private homes ... I spelt it out before (several times), saying that people are just as likely to drink to excess in the UK, but the difference is that very few of them have immediate access to guns and bullets just an arms length away in the next room of their house.

I am just pointing out that with 100 million US gun owners (or however many millions it is), there will inevitably be each year many millions of those gun owners who are at times getting "sloshed" at home in the same rooms where they have a store of all sorts of guns and a huge supply of bullets ... and that is a crazy deadly combination (to make the understatement of the year).

Obviously, no democratic country such as the US or UK is ever likely to ban people drinking in their own homes. And that may be fine if you don't have loaded guns around all over the house … but it's certainly not fine where in the US millions of gun owners will be in exactly that position every year where at various times they and others in the house are “sloshed” with a range of guns and bullets within easy reach … and that's a crazy (deadly) situation for the countries laws to allow.
 
Thermal said:
Is this what you meant about forum protocol being to semantically nitpick others into oblivion?
Click to expand...


Not at all.

You decided what IanS meant when he said "homeowners" and have now over-reacted when I pointed out that your definition and his might not coincide. It looks to me, on this evidence, that you make a habit of over-reacting.

Here's the thing. Wait until IanS tells you what he meant by his use of the word, rather than turning your ire on someone pointing out that as it wasn't you who used it in the first place it isn't up to you to decide who is and who isn't included in the definition.

As for me........I couldn't give two hoots what IanS meant. He isn't relying on me to defend his position. I don't care if he is right or wrong.
 
IanS said:
.........But it should be really very obvious that alcohol intoxication and instant access to loaded guns is a lethal disaster just waiting to happen. And the reason why that is likely to be a particular problem in the US (rather than in the UK, for example), is simply because there are so many more people who are gun owners in the US, and with so many more guns of all sorts all kept in their private homes ... I spelt it out before (several times), saying that people are just as likely to drink to excess in the UK, but the difference is that very few of them have immediate access to guns and bullets just an arms length away in the next room of their house..........

Obviously, no democratic country such as the US or UK is ever likely to ban people drinking in their own homes. And that may be fine if you don't have loaded guns around all over the house … but it's certainly not fine where in the US millions of gun owners will be in exactly that position every year where at various times they and others in the house are “sloshed” with a range of guns and bullets within easy reach … and that's a crazy (deadly) situation for the countries laws to allow.
Click to expand...

There you go again. This inexplicable fixation with whether or not there are bullets in or not in a gun is seemingly habitual.
 
MikeG said:
You're doing it again. If a person is going to go and shoot someone, do you think he'll be put off by the fact that he has to load a few bullets into the weapon first? Having a gun and ammunition in the house is the thing you should be talking about, not whether the ammunition is in the gun.
Click to expand...


No. I explained it before Mike - I am using that expression "loaded guns" just as shorthand to emphasise that in US homes the guns and their bullets are both kept there at the same location (i.e. in the same house) ... it's not a situation (afaik) where the home gun-owner has to go to some other location to collect the bullets! ... the gun can be loaded there and then, on the spot, in the house, correct?
 
P.J. Denyer said:
There's no need to get personal or sanctimonious.

You do realise that every time you persist in downplaying the access that legal shooters have to guns you just help entrench gun owners fears that any compromise on legislation is just a stopgap measure on the road to a full ban and confiscation. Those of us trying to give a more balanced view of UK gun control are doing so because the only way that the "huge numbers of innocent people [who] are being shot dead each year in the US" will be reduced is with the co-operation of US gun owners.

If you want to pretend you're the only person on the forum who cares about the deaths go ahead, but save us the virtue signalling.
Click to expand...


OK.

I'll try to keep that in mind (really!).
 
MikeG said:
There you go again. This inexplicable fixation with whether or not there are bullets in or not in a gun is seemingly habitual.
Click to expand...

I see what you mean and I'm starting to agree. Semantics? Maybe he thinks 'loaded gun' sounds better than just 'gun'?

(I still stand by what posted earlier about giving a few seconds for someone to come to their senses potentially having an effect. But that really is an aside)

Eta: Rendered obsolete by IanS' post while I was writng this one.
 
Last edited:
IanS said:
No. I explained it before Mike - I am using that expression "loaded guns" just as shorthand to emphasise that in US homes the guns and their bullets are both kept there at the same location (i.e. in the same house) ... it's not a situation (afaik) where the home gun-owner has to go to some other location to collect the bullets! ... the gun can be loaded there and then, on the spot, in the house, correct?
Click to expand...

But that's just ridiculous. Can you think of a country, anywhere, where you can keep guns in your house but not bullets? No, I thought not.

And words have meanings. Loaded means the bullets are in the gun.

Certainly in the UK if you find a gun cabinet, you'll know there are bullets somewhere in the house. You may be using it as some sort of shorthand, but it is misleading (ie you're not necessarily talking about actual loaded guns) and it makes you look as though you know nothing about the subject.
 
Last edited:
IanS said:
Thermal – we are indeed having a perfectly cordial and constructive discussion, but for some reason you are taking offence at something which just isn't there my posts. Maybe you have been influenced by some earlier US posters here who complained that UK posters were being too critical of the US people in general (though I made clear 20 pages back that I was certainly not doing that). But - I have made it repeatedly clear that I am not (and never have) singled out American people or US gun owners as being any more liable to being drunk or using recreational drugs, than people in the UK or anywhere else.

But it should be really very obvious that alcohol intoxication and instant access to loaded guns is a lethal disaster just waiting to happen. And the reason why that is likely to be a particular problem in the US (rather than in the UK, for example), is simply because there are so many more people who are gun owners in the US, and with so many more guns of all sorts all kept in their private homes ... I spelt it out before (several times), saying that people are just as likely to drink to excess in the UK, but the difference is that very few of them have immediate access to guns and bullets just an arms length away in the next room of their house.

I am just pointing out that with 100 million US gun owners (or however many millions it is), there will inevitably be each year many millions of those gun owners who are at times getting "sloshed" at home in the same rooms where they have a store of all sorts of guns and a huge supply of bullets ... and that is a crazy deadly combination (to make the understatement of the year).

Obviously, no democratic country such as the US or UK is ever likely to ban people drinking in their own homes. And that may be fine if you don't have loaded guns around all over the house … but it's certainly not fine where in the US millions of gun owners will be in exactly that position every year where at various times they and others in the house are “sloshed” with a range of guns and bullets within easy reach … and that's a crazy (deadly) situation for the countries laws to allow.
Click to expand...

Apologies if it sounded like I was taking offense, I certainly don't. You seem to be saying that you think a large percentage of killings in the US are impulsive, fueled by drinking or anger, and I really think that is not the case. While it is for sure possible, in practice the gun owners statistically do so very rarely. The gun problem in the US, and it's a big one, overwhelmingly revolves around suicide and street crime.
 
As the holder of a firearm or shotgun certificate you are required to comply with the conditions on your certificate relating to security – conditions 4 (a) &(b).

Condition 4 (a)

“The firearms and ammunition [or shotguns] to which the certificate relates must at all times (except in the circumstances set out in paragraph (b) below) be stored securely so as to prevent, so far as is reasonably practicable, access to the firearms or ammunition by an unauthorised person.”

Condition 4 (b)

“Where a firearm or ammunition [or shotgun] to which the certificate relates is in use or the holder of the certificate has the firearm with him for the purpose of cleaning, repairing or testing it or for some other purpose connected with its use, transfer or sale, or the firearm or ammunition is in transit to or from a place in connection with its use or any such purpose, reasonable precautions must be taken for the safe custody of the firearm or the ammunition.”

The security requirement relates to all firearms, sound moderators and ammunition held on a firearm certificate. On a shotgun certificate it only relates to the shotguns, not cartridges. However, it makes sense to keep them hidden away and well away from your shotgun storage.
Click to expand...

https://basc.org.uk/firearms/firearm-shotgun-security-what-do-you-do/

Secure storage of guns and ammunition is required but seperate storage of ammunition is not a legal requirement although it is recommended best practice, many gun safes apparently have a second locking compartment within the safe which qualifies as 'seperate'. Shotgun cartridges don't even 'have' to be secured although again it is recommended best practice. There is certainly no requirement to store ammunition at a seperate location.
 
It is a legal requirement to store ammunition for firearms securely. While you are not obliged in law to store it separately from your rifle, the Home Office guidelines on best practice recommend you do.

The Home Office’s Firearms Security Handbook says the following on the subject: Ammunition for Section 1 firearms must be kept secure. As a matter of best practice,
it should be stored in its own individual secure storage, for example an integral, lockable compartment within a gun cabinet.

It continues: Though secure storage of shotgun cartridges is not a requirement of the Firearms Acts, it is sensible to recommend that they should be locked away for both security and safety, especially where there are children in the house.

You can download the full document here http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/publ...df?view=Binary

Hope that helps.

Alastair
Click to expand...

This is an answer given by Alastair Balmain, the Editor of Shooting Times to a new shooter who asked about ammunition storage.
 
Thermal said:
I don't take it as an attack. I think it is a misconception, about Americans and (I would hope) people in general. IanS, and for that matter, pretty much all posters on this thread have been discussing this politely and in good faith. I don't think anyone is taking offense at anything.

IanS has claimed that the vast mass of US shootings are a homeowner picking up a gun and killing for a variety of reasons, with a virtually unlimited potential for murder. By the (rounded) numbers, there are about 33,000 annual gun deaths in the US. Over half are suicides. Of the remaining, over half are in poor urban areas, gang and other street violence. Overall, we are looking at under 8,000 'all other' causes, including mass killings, accidents and legally justified shootings. This is a far cry from the 'vast mass' being a homeowner's just up and killing (I am taking the 'homeowner' thing to mean just your average guy).
Click to expand...


What I mean by "US homeowners with guns kept at home", is (just what I have said about half a dozen times already), that where so many ordinary US homeowners/citzens do apparently keep numbers of guns and bullets in their home, it is inevitable that the greater number of those 10,000+ US gun homicides each year, will be cases where a US gun owner simply takes his own guns & bullets from his own house and shoots people for various reasons ...

... IOW - the shooter has the guns and bullets easily available to him in his own home, and it's by that means that he simply takes his own guns from his own home, and then shoots people! ...

… whether that's someone like Cruz who takes the guns from his home to shoot at a local school, or someone who merely get's a bit "sloshed" and accidentally (or even intentionally in an argument) shoots a family member or dinner guest whilst larking around in the back yard, or indeed anything in-between such as the person who one day decides to shoot at people in his workplace due to building up in his mind some obsessive dispute/grudge and where he just goes to his house and collects the guns & bullets, and then drives to the workplace and starts shooting ...

... I am just pointing out that in almost every case, that is where the guns are coming from - they are coming from the shooters own house - and that is possible only because the law allows all those people to keep all those guns and bullets in that same house.

Anyway – you & I are really not disagreeing very much at all (afaik). Not since you explained to me that in fact it's so easy for almost anyone to buy guns in most US states simply by paying for them and walking out of the store with the weapons. In that case (which I immediately admitted was news to me), I agree with you saying that proper legislation (more like you seem to have in NJ) may make a significant reduction for some of these types of US shootings (though I expect that actually any reduction will be pretty small).
 
IanS said:
.....
OK, so … if that really is the case of such almost complete lack of any worthwhile restriction on anyone at all buying guns in many states, then I have to agree with Thermal that the US does at the very least need to introduce strict registration, licensing, and suitability/safety checks, on all gun purchase/ownership/usage,
....
Click to expand...

Gee, what a great idea! Too bad nobody ever thought of that before.

Actually, some states do impose tougher restrictions, and polls indicate that a large majority of Americans support at least some measures, like universal background checks. But nothing like national registration and licensing could ever be approved.
 
Deputies were told to set up ‘perimeter’ around Parkland shooting. That’s not the training

Miami Herald said:
The Broward Sheriff’s Office captain who initially took charge of the chaotic scene at a Parkland high school where 17 people were killed told deputies to form a perimeter around the deadly scene — which they did instead of going in to confront the shooter, according to a partial BSO dispatch log obtained by the Miami Herald.

Capt. Jan Jordan, commander of BSO’s Parkland district, gave the order, the log shows, identifying her by her police call sign.

Broward Sheriff Scott Israel has said BSO training and nationwide active-shooter procedure call for armed law enforcement officers to confront shooters immediately rather than secure a scene.

The document raises fresh questions about the department’s handling of the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on Feb. 14...
Click to expand...

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/broward/article203015289.html
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom