• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nessie said:
I am pointing out very good reasons why changes in the law and banning certain types of gun will not work and are not possible.
Click to expand...

Yeah, nitpicking every suggestion. Oh, and Florida doesn't agree with you. They just changed the law on gun ownership. Why didn't you let them know they were wasting their time?

It's pretty ridiculous to buy into American exceptionalism, when the evidence from around the world is that gun control is do-able, and it works. Thank goodness people with a bit more foresight got to run the show here after Dunblane.
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
A few minutes is not 60 seconds.

You can find numerous videos of the "mad minute" contests on youtube.
The Norwegians seem to be the best.
Generally 5 round magazines are used.
They generally fire several magazines worth, and a good score on a 200 meter target is 30 hits.
The record is 36 hits in one minute. Don't know how many rounds missed the 200 meter target.
Click to expand...

And 100 is not "hundreds". You used plurals. Cooky used singular.

So what do you think? Your typical mass shooter is a world class shooter like the ones on youtube? Well even if he is, no matter how fast he is, he's faster with a 20 round magazine than with a 10 round magazine. The idea that magazine size would make no difference is ludicrous.
 
I don't believe that gun ownership, of any sort, will be made criminal in the United States because I do not believe that the legislature of any state, nor the federal government, will pass a law that turns so many law abiding citizens into criminals with the stroke of a pen. It just isn't going to happen. Existing guns, and gun owners, will be grandfathered.

I don't see any reason to believe that hunting or target shooting, using hunting style rifles, will be made illegal.

The Supreme Court has already ruled that a ban on handguns is unconstitutional, and I would be stunned if a future court were to reverse that ruling.

There's a lot of paranoia out there, but the US is not going to become a gun free zone any time soon. However, if you have your heart set on a semi-auto with a 30 round magazine, I advise you buy one now, because I hope it will be illegal within two years.
 
Last edited:
Captain_Swoop said:
No, that's not what is being put forward and if you read the posts you are replying to you would know that.
Click to expand...
When you talk about banning the AR-15 and all guns similar to the AR-15, you're talking about banning pretty much all sporting rifles. If you're talking about every gun that performs the same function as an AR-15, as in 'fire a projectile' that's every gun. So when someone says they only want to ban the AR-15 and guns that perform a similar function, they want to ban all guns.
 
Nessie said:
I am pointing out very good reasons why changes in the law and banning certain types of gun will not work and are not possible.
Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean by "work". If you mean an Aussie-style ban complete with gun roundup, that won't pass the legislature and if it did, it probably wouldn't pass the courts.

If you mean legislation that will eliminate all future mass shootings, that won't work.


If you mean meaningful gun control that will save a few lives, I believe that can be accomplished.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
When you talk about banning the AR-15 and all guns similar to the AR-15, you're talking about banning pretty much all sporting rifles. If you're talking about every gun that performs the same function as an AR-15, as in 'fire a projectile' that's every gun. So when someone says they only want to ban the AR-15 and guns that perform a similar function, they want to ban all guns.
Click to expand...

That is stupid.


I have nine guns in my house. Six of them are sporting rifles. None of them are similar to an AR 15.

I call B.S.
 
As for confiscation vs. buyback, there of course is big difference. First in democratic country you can't really confiscate anything, much less guns which cost hundreds of dollars.
But what I meant is that since you can't do true confiscation, since you have to do buyback, it will cost. And with amount of guns in US, it will cost a lot. And yep, those guns will be pretty much useless for anything, they are too much of a mixed bag. Maybe some small police forces could be armed with them, after they are well sorted. But most of the money would be just wasted.

That's why I think it won't happen. Any possible ban would be just on sales.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Presumably there would be far fewer misses...

If I can fire 60 rounds a minute with a bolt action rifle, and hit a 200 meter target with half of them, how many school kids can I hit in 3 minutes?

<snip>
Click to expand...


You quote this figure as if it was relevant to something being discussed here. It isn't. Best case performance by the world's top experts is not a useful comparison.

The 1903 Springfield (bolt action) was rated at 10 to 15 rounds per minute using a 5 round stripper clip. That's in the hands of trained soldiers.

Some kid who picks up a rifle at the local pawn shop and goes on a shooting spree is not going to do that well, probably, much less 60 aimed rounds per minute.

The semi-automatic M1 Garand, which replaced the "03, was rated at 40 to 50 rounds per minute with an eight round en bloc clip (also in the hands of a trained soldier). Still not all that close to the magical number you are trying to use as part of your argument.
 
Meadmaker said:
And 100 is not "hundreds". You used plurals. Cooky used singular.

So what do you think? Your typical mass shooter is a world class shooter like the ones on youtube? Well even if he is, no matter how fast he is, he's faster with a 20 round magazine than with a 10 round magazine. The idea that magazine size would make no difference is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

Let's go speed shooting, you get a pistol with a drum clip. I get a standard clip.

Anyone's money should be on me, unless of course you are professionally trained.
 
sadhatter said:
Let's go speed shooting, you get a pistol with a drum clip. I get a standard clip.

Anyone's money should be on me, unless of course you are professionally trained.
Click to expand...

What's your point? Seriously, why do people say this kind of junk?

You are very fast with a standard clip. Congratulations. Nick Cruz isn't.


And I don't know what a drum clip is, but I'm guessing that it helps people shoot faster. Am I right? Ok. Let's go speed shooting. I'll give you a million dollars if you can hit fourteen targets in 12 seconds. The targets simulate teenagers running down a corridor with a corner at the end, but you don't get any money unless you hit all of them before they get around the corner. Now, are you going to take the drum clip or not?

Or is a drum clip something that only helps speed shooting for people who aren't very good at speed shooting? It helps people with little training fire lots of bullets really fast? Well if that's the case, it sounds like a really bad idea. Ban the cursed things.
 
I don't think banning large magazine would help much. Sure lets say 10 dead vs. 17 dead, that's quite a difference for those 7 living. It's still mass shooting and great tragedy for anyone else.
I think the idea here is 'nobody needs 30 round magazines for anything useful'. And that's IMHO true. For hunting IMHO even 10 rounder is pointless. And rifles are really only useful for hunting. Some argue 30 round AR-15 is great for killing groups of feral boars. I guess it is. But how many people really need AR-15 for that ?
Handguns are different. Their main purpose is self-defense. And with self-defense, any magazine size is useful. But above 10 the practical usefulness quickly drops, as situations where it would be handy get less probable. Most of the times, defense with handguns is done by showing the attacker you have a handgun. No shots fired.
Shotguns with large box magazines (10,20) are popular these days, and could be devastating in mass shooting. I don't see much sense in having more than 5 for hunting. But then shotgun shells are really big, you can't carry much on you. Haven't even heard about shotgun being used in mass shooting. But they for sure would get more popular with AR ban.
 
Steve said:
I will. They need guns to protect themselves from armed citizens.
Click to expand...

...who need guns to protect themselves against armed non-citizens Who need them protect themselves from armed citizens and so on and so on and so on.

Try again. Why do non-citizens need to be allowed to own a gun?
 
CaptainHowdy said:
...who need guns to protect themselves against armed non-citizens Who need them protect themselves from armed citizens and so on and so on and so on.

Try again. Why do non-citizens need to be allowed to own a gun?
Click to expand...

They're surrounded by clowns who think they are safer because they've got a gun. That's why.

The real answer, which you'll never address, is that none of them have guns for self-protection.
 
bruto said:
Usually whenever someone refers to other countries, it's pointed out that this is not another country, and that Americans should not be bound by the way other countries (such as those that control guns) behave. Now suddenly we look to other countries? Why shouldn't a legal immigrant be as able to own or use a gun as a citizen? What if a citizen marries a non citizen (as I once did)? My ex wife was a Swiss immigrant for many years before she became a citizen. Oh wait, she was Swiss and Christian and white, so I don't suppose you mean that kind of non-citizen, do you?
Click to expand...

Married to and living with a non-citizen would be treated as if you were married to and living with any other ineligible person. I don’t know what they do if you own a gun and your spouse, say, is a restrained person. Can you keep your gun? If you store it where your spouse doesn’t have access to it can you keep it? I don’t know.

All non-citizens would be treated the same. Being Swiss, Christian, and a White gives her no benefits. Although being Swiss she probablY grew up with a gun in the house and is familiar with their operation.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
Why don't you just come out a say "black people?" We can all hear those dog whistles loud and clear
Click to expand...

In this country people who have Firearms Licences include all races. My next door neighbour (who shoots with me) is a Muslim, from Afghanistan and he holds a Firearms Licence. My son in law is Maori, he is also a FL holder, and goes duck-shooting with me every May.

This is not America. In this country dog whistles are for calling sheep dogs.
 
The flaw is to start with a right for guns and then make exceptions.
The correct way is to make guns a privilege and see who would qualify due to need and skill - the way most countries do it.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
Married to and living with a non-citizen would be treated as if you were married to and living with any other ineligible person. I don’t know what they do if you own a gun and your spouse, say, is a restrained person. Can you keep your gun? If you store it where your spouse doesn’t have access to it can you keep it? I don’t know.
.....
Click to expand...

What are you on about? Legal residents have many of the same rights (and obligations) as citizens, including the right to buy and own firearms. And their immigration status certainly doesn't have any impact on the rights of any citizen that they happen to be married to or living with. On what basis do you conclude that non-citizen possession of firearms is a special problem that requires a massive change in the laws?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom