Shooting discussion devolves

[Andras]

You might want to shrink that picture a bit brother.

Fixed it, my browser shrank it to fit when I first looked at it and copied the url.

[Havok]

OK. Let's talk school policies. Which school policies at an elementary school would have prevented this?

What is the fundamental issue with our "culture" that allowed this to happen?

*snipped your ridiculously sized pic*

While that is a snappy come back, is that the United States? Would that woman be hauled away by the cops in a heartbeat in the fucking U.S.?

Newsflash people. California is an open carry state. I can walk around like Han Fucking Solo and it is perfectly legal. Are the cops still going to haul me to jail and harass me to no end until the judge smiles at me and throws the case out, gleefully waiting to see me again? Yup.

Shootouts are never the fucking answer, especially at a fucking school. The idea that everyone is carrying a gun is a deterrent to... wait for it... SANE people. When the fuck has ONE of these occurrences been committed by someone that didn't need serious mental health care?

[Lonestar]

Yeah, you are right, I mean this is obviously a completely different weapon for only $1,200. It is definitely the ability to go fully auto and 3 round burst that allows the rapid killing of people. Just having 10 rounds in two clips, I mean, you couldn't kill nearly enough people with that.


I wonder what fully auto model today's killer used? Oh, maybe he went conservative with his 3 round burst option on his weapon. You know, so he could make sure he saved that last one for himself.

He didn't use any fully automatic weapon, or a "assault rifle." Fucking use the correct terminology. That is an expectation of debates on this board.

I know the terms and what they mean. They are practically irrelevant, except to semantics arguers like yourself, that decide they want to miss the big picture and just cherry pick like a pro. I could have just said "rifle" and then where would your clever little rebuttal be? Oh I'm sure you are going to do some technical break down of gun laws and what is and what isn't legal now. It's so predictable.

Oh man are you serious?

"Clips"?

"It looks the same"?

If we were discussing cars and you said manual and automatic transmission were the same, and dug your heels in when pointed out that it wasn't, you would be laughed at as a retard.

And yes, you could have just said "rifle", but you didn't. Instead you've opted to use big scary words(incorrectly) and then compounded it by referring to "clips" while pointing to a Bushmaster MSR. What's great is that I can tell that you intended to say "assault weapon" because most Californians refer to Evil Black Rifles as "assault weapons" due to the state AWB, but you couldn't even get that fucking right!

By the way fucknugget, THIS is a "clip".



THIS is a magazine



No doubt you first learned about the "clips" from your boyz in Oakland who were talking about their "gats". This made you very aware of the nuances of gun use and gun control legislation, I can see.

[Flagg]

I can't believe people have the gall to post gun porn in a thread about children being massacred.

[Andras]

OK. Let's talk school policies. Which school policies at an elementary school would have prevented this?

What is the fundamental issue with our "culture" that allowed this to happen?

*snipped your ridiculously sized pic*

While that is a snappy come back, is that the United States? Would that woman be hauled away by the cops in a heartbeat in the fucking U.S.?

Newsflash people. California is an open carry state. I can walk around like Han Fucking Solo and it is perfectly legal. Are the cops still going to haul me to jail and harass me to no end until the judge smiles at me and throws the case out, gleefully waiting to see me again? Yup.

Shootouts are never the fucking answer, especially at a fucking school. The idea that everyone is carrying a gun is a deterrent to... wait for it... SANE people. When the fuck has ONE of these occurrences been committed by someone that didn't need serious mental health care?

Not anymore, unloaded open carry was banned in CA.

Pilots were armed to prevent hijackings. Why shouldn't teachers be armed to prevent school shootings.

[Lonestar]

I can't believe Flagg has the gall to whine about a illuminating image because someone taking a position on something very obviously isn't too familiar on the subject matter himself.


Havok wanted a GC debate, and then proceeded to misuse terminology and then get snippy when he was corrected on it. He very obviously needed some visual aids.

[Havok]

If we keep having more shootings, can this be merged into one thread, until the full moon ends or the Mayan calender ends, or whatever is causing loonies to come out of the wood work?


I want to mention that guns do kill people. Which is why responsible gun owners make sure to point their weapons where it would cause the least harm and lock it. It however is a travesty of the criminal justice system to scapegoat the blame for these horrific gun crimes onto the people who either own or use the gun that has committed the crime. Really, the blame should be placed onto the gun itself, along with the people who produce it and distribute them. Can you believe not a single firearm has stood trial for the harms that it has caused?

On another note, the cause behind gun rights can be blamed on the British. After they attempted to disarm the colonial militia (or what would be considered to be the National Guard today), and quartered troops in homes, we largely ended up with the 2nd Amendment and 3rd Amendments. I don't think the founding fathers imagined the effects of guns on society, as they didn't have drive-by shootings then.

That is such bullshit. Trained soldiers that spend their days practicing shooting their weapons go through round after round in live fire because you just can't aim=hit when someone is shooting back. You think Joe six pack is going to be able to calmly just pick a spot and shoot and hit exactly what he is aiming for when some crazy fuck with a shotgun, pistol, AK or whatever is picking off kids? Or shooting back? I wouldn't even rely on Police to do that in most instances let alone average citizen.

And "Can you believe not a single firearm has stood trial for the harms that it has caused?" What the fuck kinda bullshit is that? No one is questioning who is responsible numbnuts. It is a matter of ease and access. Go kill ONE PERSON with a bat or a knife. You wouldn't even have enough fucking energy to make it to 28, no matter how ramped up you were. But hey, I'll just go grab my Dad's gun. I can get at least 10 or 12 with 30 rounds. Especially scarred people that are frozen in place and have no idea what is going on, and I won't even break a sweat.

[Flagg]

I can't believe Flagg has the gall to whine about a illuminating image because someone taking a position on something very obviously isn't too familiar on the subject matter himself.


Havok wanted a GC debate, and then proceeded to misuse terminology and then get snippy when he was corrected on it. He very obviously needed some visual aids.

Who gives a fuck? Show some fucking respect.

[CaptHawkeye]

He's being snippy because you're trying to trash him over shit that means absolutely nothing. Are you going to explain to the parents that the weapon the guy used to kill their children may or may not *precisely* have been an assault rifle it was KXR-2050B with G-9 magazine not the factory clip? Get a hold of yourself.

[ray245]

At least it can be said with every disaster like this the anti-gun propaganda machine looks more and more ridiculous. Duchess is right that gun control is not the primary cause of crimes like this though. That the issue to really confront is why crimes like this happen at all in the first place. However Havoc is also very much right that easy access to devices which are designed by their very NATURE to maximize the likelihood of death and fatalities played a part.

Gun control might not the be primary cause of such an act here, but gun circulation in the United States certainly is. It does not matter how hard it is to purchase a gun legally in any particular state, as long as gun circulation is high in the entire nation, people who should not be anywhere near a gun can still purchase them.

The issue is how do you stop easy access to guns? A good way would be to have a gun control law as strict as the UK and apply it nationwide in the United States, but most Americans would rather die than to give up their guns.


Also, anyone who thinks that teachers carrying gun around is the best option can kindly fuck himself or herself. Are you seriously arguing that having a gunfight in the middle of a classroom with kids is the best option?

[ryacko]

If we keep having more shootings, can this be merged into one thread, until the full moon ends or the Mayan calender ends, or whatever is causing loonies to come out of the wood work?


I want to mention that guns do kill people. Which is why responsible gun owners make sure to point their weapons where it would cause the least harm and lock it. It however is a travesty of the criminal justice system to scapegoat the blame for these horrific gun crimes onto the people who either own or use the gun that has committed the crime. Really, the blame should be placed onto the gun itself, along with the people who produce it and distribute them. Can you believe not a single firearm has stood trial for the harms that it has caused?

On another note, the cause behind gun rights can be blamed on the British. After they attempted to disarm the colonial militia (or what would be considered to be the National Guard today), and quartered troops in homes, we largely ended up with the 2nd Amendment and 3rd Amendments. I don't think the founding fathers imagined the effects of guns on society, as they didn't have drive-by shootings then.

That is such bullshit. Trained soldiers that spend their days practicing shooting their weapons go through round after round in live fire because you just can't aim=hit when someone is shooting back. You think Joe six pack is going to be able to calmly just pick a spot and shoot and hit exactly what he is aiming for when some crazy fuck with a shotgun, pistol, AK or whatever is picking off kids? Or shooting back? I wouldn't even rely on Police to do that in most instances let alone average citizen.

And "Can you believe not a single firearm has stood trial for the harms that it has caused?" What the fuck kinda bullshit is that? No one is questioning who is responsible numbnuts. It is a matter of ease and access. Go kill ONE PERSON with a bat or a knife. You wouldn't even have enough fucking energy to make it to 28, no matter how ramped up you were. But hey, I'll just go grab my Dad's gun. I can get at least 10 or 12 with 30 rounds. Especially scarred people that are frozen in place and have no idea what is going on, and I won't even break a sweat.

It's true that it is hard to shoot someone armed to defend themselves and it does take quite a few seconds to aim.

Scarred people who are frozen in place? I generally believe nearly all people start running for cover. According to advice from gun-free universities on what to do during a shooting, you're supposed to charge towards your attacker to disarm him or throw available objects him, hopefully stoning him to death.

Gun control might not the be primary cause of such an act here, but gun circulation in the United States certainly is. It does not matter how hard it is to purchase a gun legally in any particular state, as long as gun circulation is high in the entire nation, people who should not be anywhere near a gun can still purchase them.

The "gun show loophole" does not exist in states who have laws covering it.
Besides, according to the NRA, there are 250 million guns existent in the US of A.

[Captain Seafort]

The issue is how do you stop easy access to guns? A good way would be to have a gun control law as strict as the UK and apply it nationwide in the United States, but most Americans would rather die than to give up their guns.

You could probably have said the same about the UK a few decades ago. It changed, and one of the most important tipping points was an incident almost identical to this one - Dunblane

[Havok]

Yeah, you are right, I mean this is obviously a completely different weapon for only $1,200. It is definitely the ability to go fully auto and 3 round burst that allows the rapid killing of people. Just having 10 rounds in two clips, I mean, you couldn't kill nearly enough people with that.


I wonder what fully auto model today's killer used? Oh, maybe he went conservative with his 3 round burst option on his weapon. You know, so he could make sure he saved that last one for himself.

He didn't use any fully automatic weapon, or a "assault rifle." Fucking use the correct terminology. That is an expectation of debates on this board.

Hahahaha that is my point idiot. It was fucking pistols which shoot one at a time. Hi, I am obvious sarcasm, are you Lonestar?

I know the terms and what they mean. They are practically irrelevant, except to semantics arguers like yourself, that decide they want to miss the big picture and just cherry pick like a pro. I could have just said "rifle" and then where would your clever little rebuttal be? Oh I'm sure you are going to do some technical break down of gun laws and what is and what isn't legal now. It's so predictable.

Oh man are you serious?

"Clips"?

"It looks the same"?

If we were discussing cars and you said manual and automatic transmission were the same, and dug your heels in when pointed out that it wasn't, you would be laughed at as a retard.

And yes, you could have just said "rifle", but you didn't. Instead you've opted to use big scary words(incorrectly) and then compounded it by referring to "clips" while pointing to a Bushmaster MSR. What's great is that I can tell that you intended to say "assault weapon" because most Californians refer to Evil Black Rifles as "assault weapons" due to the state AWB, but you couldn't even get that fucking right!

By the way fucknugget, THIS is a "clip".



THIS is a magazine



No doubt you first learned about the "clips" from your boyz in Oakland who were talking about their "gats". This made you very aware of the nuances of gun use and gun control legislation, I can see.

Dude, clip, magazine, I know the difference. I don't fucking care and it doesn't matter. They perform the same task, feeding the bullet/cartridge into the weapon to be fired. All you are doing is cementing your status as king Cherry Pick McSemantics and missing the entire point. "OMG YOU DIDN'T USE PROPER TERMINOLOGY ABOUT MY FAVORITE HOBBY SO YOUR ENTIRE POINT ON GUNS BEING FAR TOO ABUNDANT AND EASY TO GET IS STUPID AND HOLDS NO WATER!"
If this were a thread about drunk driving, I'm not going to have a conniption fit and start posting transmission picture if someone, knowing or not, doesn't use the correct "manual" or "automatic" terminology. I'm certainly not going to base an entire argument about drunk driving on the make and model of the fucking cars.

You are a fucking fool.

[ray245]

The "gun show loophole" does not exist in states who have laws covering it.

Is there anything that can prevent from driving with a gun from one state to another? It is not like there is some sort of checkpoint between every state that conducts a security check on every person moving in and out of the state.

Besides, according to the NRA, there are 250 million guns existent in the US of A.

So nearly everyone in the US owns a gun? It is going to be extremely easy for anyone who is not mentally healthy to get a gun somehow, be it legally or illegally. With such a large amount of gun circulating in the country, no amount of gun control laws in a state can effectively stop a person who is determined enough to buy a gun and go on a killing spree.

[Lonestar]

Who gives a fuck? Show some fucking respect.

Tell you what,

I'll take your "show some respect" statement under serious consideration if you direct something at Havok along the line of "it was incredibly disrespectful to come into this thread and pick a GC fight, we have a thread for that in SLAM". Hell, I'll even stop posting in this thread (other than an acknowledgement of your post).

Because otherwise I'm going to consider this just a case of Flagg being on his high horse and turning a blind eye when "his side" does it.

He's being snippy because you're trying to trash him over shit that means absolutely nothing. Are you going to explain to the parents that the weapon the guy used to kill their children may or may not *precisely* have been an assault rifle it was KXR-2050B with G-9 magazine not the factory clip? Get a hold of yourself.

Dude,

if you're using incorrect terminology on a subject while taking a position on it, that implies that your knowledge on the subject isn't exactly up to par. In fact, considering that these are very basic terms that most people who have even a passing acquaintance with firearms are familiar with, and Havok isn't, it not only implies he is a little bit ignorant about, but a very ignorant of the subject matter.

One of the reasons gun enthusiasts really, really hate Dianne Feinstein(as opposed to any of a dozen other political-types that have a similar track record on gun control) is because of a picture that's been floating around for years of her holding a AK-style rifle at a pro AWB political rally with her finger on the trigger.

When someone says "We need to ban guns/have more gun control" and then proceeds to show immense ignorance on the subject, it is very frustrating and makes one wonder "why does this guy seriously think this way about firearms when he very obviously doesn't know shot about them, even in the abstract?"

And, I guess I'll say it again, Havok is the one who wanted to start a gun control fight, not me.

[Lonestar]

Dude, clip, magazine, I know the difference. I don't fucking care and it doesn't matter. They perform the same task, feeding the bullet/cartridge into the weapon to be fired. All you are doing is cementing your status as king Cherry Pick McSemantics and missing the entire point. "OMG YOU DIDN'T USE PROPER TERMINOLOGY ABOUT MY FAVORITE HOBBY SO YOUR ENTIRE POINT ON GUNS BEING FAR TOO ABUNDANT AND EASY TO GET IS STUPID AND HOLDS NO WATER!"
If this were a thread about drunk driving, I'm not going to have a conniption fit and start posting transmission picture if someone, knowing or not, doesn't use the correct "manual" or "automatic" terminology. I'm certainly not going to base an entire argument about drunk driving on the make and model of the fucking cars.

You are a fucking fool.

So, you were just saying that to get a rise out of me? Okay, fine. Glad that we have Havok admitting to being a troll for everyone to see.

[ryacko]

Dude, clip, magazine, I know the difference. I don't fucking care and it doesn't matter. They perform the same task, feeding the bullet/cartridge into the weapon to be fired. All you are doing is cementing your status as king Cherry Pick McSemantics and missing the entire point. "OMG YOU DIDN'T USE PROPER TERMINOLOGY ABOUT MY FAVORITE HOBBY SO YOUR ENTIRE POINT ON GUNS BEING FAR TOO ABUNDANT AND EASY TO GET IS STUPID AND HOLDS NO WATER!"
If this were a thread about drunk driving, I'm not going to have a conniption fit and start posting transmission picture if someone, knowing or not, doesn't use the correct "manual" or "automatic" terminology. I'm certainly not going to base an entire argument about drunk driving on the make and model of the fucking cars.

Yes, but enacting laws against drunk driving would only involve restricting beer use or consumption, or blood alcohol levels.

Not banning automatic transmissions. Analogy doesn't fit.

Is there anything that can prevent from driving with a gun from one state to another? It is not like there is some sort of checkpoint between every state that conducts a security check on every person moving in and out of the state.

I wasn't aware this was a major issue. I haven't heard much about interstate gun trafficking. Generally law-abiding citizens try to stay within the confines of the law.

So nearly everyone in the US owns a gun? It is going to be extremely easy for anyone who is not mentally healthy to get a gun somehow, be it legally or illegally. With such a large amount of gun circulating in the country, no amount of gun control laws in a state can effectively stop a person who is determined enough to buy a gun and go on a killing spree.

Math fail.
It's like saying a sixth of the world owns a gun, despite the majority of those guns being locked up in arsenals and private collections.
Edit: Can you try getting a gun? As an experiment ofc.

[Havok]

Not anymore, unloaded open carry was banned in CA.

Shit. I didn't know the law changed. Thanks. The point stands on that picture though. You just can't do that in the States (maybe some of them honestly), open carry laws or no, it would not be tolerated.

Pilots were armed to prevent hijackings. Why shouldn't teachers be armed to prevent school shootings.

Would it actually prevent it? And teachers for the most part are a different type of professional than a pilot. A pilot adheres to strict rules and regulations and discipline. Now this is purely anecdotal, but the teachers that I have come across are for the most part timid and more free thinking and rules are lose guidelines, not absolutes. Teachers have difficulty breaking up fights and maintaining control of kids and you want to arm them?

You would be better off and have better luck getting ex SEALs and Recon Marines teaching credentials and filling our classrooms with them than getting existing teachers competent and comfortable being armed at schools.

[Flagg]

Who gives a fuck? Show some fucking respect.

Tell you what,

I'll take your "show some respect" statement under serious consideration if you direct something at Havok along the line of "it was incredibly disrespectful to come into this thread and pick a GC fight, we have a thread for that in SLAM". Hell, I'll even stop posting in this thread (other than an acknowledgement of your post).

Because otherwise I'm going to consider this just a case of Flagg being on his high horse and turning a blind eye when "his side" does it.

I don't give a fuck if you're engaging in a gun control debate. Frankly we need a vigorous one every week when another psycho shoots up a bunch of innocent people. I take issue with you and captain fucktard above you posting pictures of guns and ammunition in a thread where 20 kids were massacred using them.

[Lonestar]

So, going with the "turns blind eye when his side acts disrespectful then".


Fine. Not unexpected, but fine.

[Flagg]

Not anymore, unloaded open carry was banned in CA.

Shit. I didn't know the law changed. Thanks. The point stands on that picture though. You just can't do that in the States (maybe some of them honestly), open carry laws or no, it would not be tolerated.

Pilots were armed to prevent hijackings. Why shouldn't teachers be armed to prevent school shootings.

Would it actually prevent it? And teachers for the most part are a different type of professional than a pilot. A pilot adheres to strict rules and regulations and discipline. Now this is purely anecdotal, but the teachers that I have come across are for the most part timid and more free thinking and rules are lose guidelines, not absolutes. Teachers have difficulty breaking up fights and maintaining control of kids and you want to arm them?

You would be better off and have better luck getting ex SEALs and Recon Marines teaching credentials and filling our classrooms with them than getting existing teachers competent and comfortable being armed at schools.

Anyone who thinks that a crossfire situation would be an improvement over one person shooting wildly into a crowd is so stupid they should be committed. Anyway, a much easier solution is to post more campus resource Police officers who are actually trained to and make their living protecting people.

[Flagg]

So, going with the "turns blind eye when his side acts disrespectful then".


Fine. Not unexpected, but fine.

Go fuck a blender you lying cunt. If Hav decided to post pictures of shot up kids to bolster his argument I'd take issue with that.

[Havok]

Dude, clip, magazine, I know the difference. I don't fucking care and it doesn't matter. They perform the same task, feeding the bullet/cartridge into the weapon to be fired. All you are doing is cementing your status as king Cherry Pick McSemantics and missing the entire point. "OMG YOU DIDN'T USE PROPER TERMINOLOGY ABOUT MY FAVORITE HOBBY SO YOUR ENTIRE POINT ON GUNS BEING FAR TOO ABUNDANT AND EASY TO GET IS STUPID AND HOLDS NO WATER!"
If this were a thread about drunk driving, I'm not going to have a conniption fit and start posting transmission picture if someone, knowing or not, doesn't use the correct "manual" or "automatic" terminology. I'm certainly not going to base an entire argument about drunk driving on the make and model of the fucking cars.

You are a fucking fool.

So, you were just saying that to get a rise out of me? Okay, fine. Glad that we have Havok admitting to being a troll for everyone to see.

You think I give a fuck about you? You got a rise out of yourself dumbass. It is general terminology that everyone recognizes. I don't need to be specific about guns, because we aren't in a gun thread. I need to be specific on my stance on A) this particular school shooting and B) my stance on my points. If you wanna go wax intellectual about firearms, I would be more than happy to, but don't mistake my not caring about your super special hobby as not having knowledge about it. You can have a stance on gun control without knowing what size ammo NATO uses, or what H&K makes their pistol grips out of, and even missusing the term "assault rifle" you idiot. You're fucking just like an annoying Trekkie.

And with that said, can a mod split this out of the N&P thread, because it is delving off into a different area and the original thread apparently is for everyone to come in and say how shocked and appalled they are because that is really helpful and informative.

[ryacko]

Not with that ammo, they weren't.

That's just not right.

Anyone who thinks that a crossfire situation would be an improvement over one person shooting wildly into a crowd is so stupid they should be committed. Anyway, a much easier solution is to post more campus resource Police officers who are actually trained to and make their living protecting people.

Yes, but who pays campus police? Higher tuition? Who then?

Crossfire is unlikely to harm anybody.
http://www.snopes.com/crime/dumdum/gunshop.asp
^ A guy robbed a gunstore, three people shot him, only the robber is dead.

[Havok]

Dude, clip, magazine, I know the difference. I don't fucking care and it doesn't matter. They perform the same task, feeding the bullet/cartridge into the weapon to be fired. All you are doing is cementing your status as king Cherry Pick McSemantics and missing the entire point. "OMG YOU DIDN'T USE PROPER TERMINOLOGY ABOUT MY FAVORITE HOBBY SO YOUR ENTIRE POINT ON GUNS BEING FAR TOO ABUNDANT AND EASY TO GET IS STUPID AND HOLDS NO WATER!"
If this were a thread about drunk driving, I'm not going to have a conniption fit and start posting transmission picture if someone, knowing or not, doesn't use the correct "manual" or "automatic" terminology. I'm certainly not going to base an entire argument about drunk driving on the make and model of the fucking cars.

Yes, but enacting laws against drunk driving would only involve restricting beer use or consumption, or blood alcohol levels.

Not banning automatic transmissions. Analogy doesn't fit.

Look, if you aren't going to be bothered to read posts, don't respond to mine.