Shooting discussion devolves

[Flagg]

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?

They are called "taxes" moron.

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

One incident of a fucking miracle where no one was killed or hit by crossfire proves your entire point, then.

[CaptHawkeye]

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


Fine. Not unexpected, but fine.

Stop being a fucking toolbox Lonestar. Even if you *legitimately*only cared about Hav getting his facts right, their were FAR better ways to go about it.

[Flagg]

What is pissing me off is that we can't have a single fucking gun control debate here without the pro-gun at all costs nutters posting retarded bullshit in support of their weak as hell position (when they aren't whining about the discussion taking place at all). I'm not for banning guns. I'd be for registration of certain types of firearms if I didn't think it would start Civil War 2, but common fucking sense shit like magazine capacity limitations and closing gunshow and private sale loopholes gets drowned out by fucktards nitpicking terminology and posting gun porn all over the place.

[Andras]

NJ and CT have among the strictest gun control laws in the nation. What more do you want? They both have AWBs in place since the Federal ban began in 1994.

NJ and CT both register guns.

[Alkaloid]

One thing that irritates me about the gun control debate is that yeah, as much as I have issues with handguns being available to the general public for non sporting purposes, and think that anyone who actually thinks they need a semi automatic rifle for home defence is either delusional or should be in government protection, and the idea of people being able to buy guns without a licence, let alone having to register it just baffles me, very little focus seems to be put on gun owners actually controlling their weapons. The number of times I hear about people pulling shit like this with weapons they stole from someone astounds me. Sensible people, the sort that should be allowed to own guns, keep them locked in a safe. Its being transported, maintained, used or is locked in a safe where children, mentally unbalanced relatives and people breaking into your house cant fucking get to it.

You want to sleep with a gun under your pillow. Fine. Your an idiot, but its your head you're going to blow off, and your teenager your likely to shoot when you go all Rambo at 3 in the morning because they came home drunk and you thought they were a burglar, but when you get out of bed lock the fucking gun away where its actually safe, please. People that allow their guns to be stolen because they haven't take even the most basic precautions, despite the fact that they keep getting stolen and used in crimes astound me, and if they aren't going to take some sort of responsibility for their guns they shouldn't have them in the first place.

(Note I have no idea where this particular gun cam from, I'm not claiming it was stolen. This is my contribution to the general gun control debate)

Crossfire is unlikely to harm anybody.

This is one of the most surreal things I have ever seen.

[Andras]

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.

You wanted an example of a policy that would prevent a school shooting. The woman is a security guard hired to protect kids on a field trip, but the point of armed security in a school stands.

There have been school shootings stopped because teachers or other students went off campus to retrieve personally owned firearms and tracked down the shooter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachia ... w_shooting
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

[Flagg]

One thing that irritates me about the gun control debate is that yeah, as much as I have issues with handguns being available to the general public for non sporting purposes, and think that anyone who actually thinks they need a semi automatic rifle for home defence is either delusional or should be in government protection, and the idea of people being able to buy guns without a licence, let alone having to register it just baffles me, very little focus seems to be put on gun owners actually controlling their weapons. The number of times I hear about people pulling shit like this with weapons they stole from someone astounds me. Sensible people, the sort that should be allowed to own guns, keep them locked in a safe. Its being transported, maintained, used or is locked in a safe where children, mentally unbalanced relatives and people breaking into your house cant fucking get to it.

You want to sleep with a gun under your pillow. Fine. Your an idiot, but its your head you're going to blow off, and your teenager your likely to shoot when you go all Rambo at 3 in the morning because they came home drunk and you thought they were a burglar, but when you get out of bed lock the fucking gun away where its actually safe, please. People that allow their guns to be stolen because they haven't take even the most basic precautions, despite the fact that they keep getting stolen and used in crimes astound me, and if they aren't going to take some sort of responsibility for their guns they shouldn't have them in the first place.

(Note I have no idea where this particular gun cam from, I'm not claiming it was stolen. This is my contribution to the general gun control debate)

Crossfire is unlikely to harm anybody.

This is one of the most surreal things I have ever seen.

The most surreal argument I've ever seen was that kids sleeping in their houses a block away were just as likely to get accidentally stabbed in a gang fight as opposed to accidentally shot in their sleep in a gang shootout.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Huh. In the last gun control thread I observed and participated in it seemed like some progress was made. Basically, the issue of firearm violence is more than just gun control and has to do with a large number of social issues and the culture of violence in this country.

Firearm laws should probably be standardized throughout the country and tighter controls placed on it to hold owners accountable and prevent the mentally ill from obtaining them. However, good luck getting that accomplished. It makes much more sense to deal with those other social issues then to attack something like the 2nd amendment. And you can type "Go MERICA! GO 2ND AMENDMENT" all you want but that fact remains that to many citizens and leaders in this country the 2nd amendment is just as important as the 4th. That is a fact you cannot escape from and suggesting that it be "infringed" upon is just as poor of an argument as those that the pro-gun control side makes.

[Mr Bean]

What is pissing me off is that we can't have a single fucking gun control debate here without the pro-gun at all costs nutters posting retarded bullshit in support of their weak as hell position (when they aren't whining about the discussion taking place at all). I'm not for banning guns. I'd be for registration of certain types of firearms if I didn't think it would start Civil War 2, but common fucking sense shit like magazine capacity limitations and closing gunshow and private sale loopholes gets drowned out by fucktards nitpicking terminology and posting gun porn all over the place.

Which goes to the heart of the problem Flagg. If you look back at the shootings since Gabby Giffords over a year ago now nearly two years ago of them only one (the Giffords) shooting) might have been prevented with those gun laws.

None of the purpose laws would have keep guns out of the hands of any of the last dozen mass shootings. You could have made an argument for the Auroa shooting but without a much more massive screening process you would not have picked him out. In a way it goes all the way back to the first infamous school shooting, and by first I mean first to the last two generations the Columbine shooting situation, no purposed laws would have prevented it.

That's the issue Flagg, you need to take a look at your law proposals and say would Law X have prevented this? And in most cases since mass shootings are not something someone with a record does or anyone does twice, your just not going to be able to stop it with anything SHORT of a full scale banning.


Also the magazine proposal was silly before and is silly now for reasons already covered. Magazines are easy to make unlike guns. It's a chunk of material and a spring. If you don't want to buy your own you could make your own out of almost anything, cave the top part in the right shape and add a spring of sufficient tensile strength. It's an hour long job, and unless you want to ban rectangles or ban springs implementing the ban just means adding an extra charge after the fact.

*Edit
Giffords shooting date corrected, almost two years already.

[Flagg]

What is pissing me off is that we can't have a single fucking gun control debate here without the pro-gun at all costs nutters posting retarded bullshit in support of their weak as hell position (when they aren't whining about the discussion taking place at all). I'm not for banning guns. I'd be for registration of certain types of firearms if I didn't think it would start Civil War 2, but common fucking sense shit like magazine capacity limitations and closing gunshow and private sale loopholes gets drowned out by fucktards nitpicking terminology and posting gun porn all over the place.

Which goes to the heart of the problem Flagg. If you look back at the shootings since Gabby Giffords over a year ago now of them only one (the Giffords) shooting) might have been prevented with those gun laws.

None of the purpose laws would have keep guns out of the hands of any of the last dozen mass shootings. You could have made an argument for the Auroa shooting but without a much more massive screening process you would not have picked him out. In a way it goes all the way back to the first infamous school shooting, and by first I mean first to the last two generations the Columbine shooting situation, no purposed laws would have prevented it.

That's the issue Flagg, you need to take a look at your law proposals and say would Law X have prevented this? And in most cases since mass shootings are not something someone with a record does or anyone does twice, your just not going to be able to stop it with anything SHORT of a full scale banning.


Also the magazine proposal was silly before and is silly now for reasons already covered. Magazines are easy to make unlike guns. It's a chunk of material and a spring. If you don't want to buy your own you could make your own out of almost anything, cave the top part in the right shape and add a spring of sufficient tensile strength. It's an hour long job, and unless you want to ban rectangles or ban springs implementing the ban just means adding an extra charge after the fact.

James Holmes used a legally purchased 100 round drum magazine in the Aurora massacre. Could he have built a magazine or bought one illegally? Sure, but you can do plenty of shit illegally. The point, which sailed over your head, is that just owning a large capacity magazine would be illegal, and therefore harder to get. Or does the concept elude you?

[Flagg]

Huh. In the last gun control thread I observed and participated in it seemed like some progress was made. Basically, the issue of firearm violence is more than just gun control and has to do with a large number of social issues and the culture of violence in this country.

Firearm laws should probably be standardized throughout the country and tighter controls placed on it to hold owners accountable and prevent the mentally ill from obtaining them. However, good luck getting that accomplished. It makes much more sense to deal with those other social issues then to attack something like the 2nd amendment. And you can type "Go MERICA! GO 2ND AMENDMENT" all you want but that fact remains that to many citizens and leaders in this country the 2nd amendment is just as important as the 4th. That is a fact you cannot escape from and suggesting that it be "infringed" upon is just as poor of an argument as those that the pro-gun control side makes.

I'll admit I'm being particularly strident in this thread. It probably has something to do with little kids being the latest victims in a long string of brutal massacres carried out by Americans against eachother.

[Kamakazie Sith]

James Holmes used a legally purchased 100 round drum magazine in the Aurora massacre. Could he have built a magazine or bought one illegally? Sure, but you can do plenty of shit illegally. The point, which sailed over your head, is that just owning a large capacity magazine would be illegal, and therefore harder to get. Or does the concept elude you?

It's an irrelevant point, Flagg. With proper practice, which many of these shooters seem to do prior to the act, you can change magazines very quickly or go to backup weapon and the desire to practice would certainly be there if you limited them to ten round mags. Basically, doing so wouldn't make that much of a difference in most situations. It is just as likely that the 100 round mag played a role in Holmes weapon jamming.

We need to stop focusing on the tools and focus on the cause.

[Losonti Tokash]

Is there any reason you can't focus on both?

[Mr Bean]

James Holmes used a legally purchased 100 round drum magazine in the Aurora massacre. Could he have built a magazine or bought one illegally? Sure, but you can do plenty of shit illegally. The point, which sailed over your head, is that just owning a large capacity magazine would be illegal, and therefore harder to get. Or does the concept elude you?

Did you miss me listing the steps to constructing high capacity magazines? At least with a drum mag you have a shred of a point. But when you say "high capacity magazines" you must clarify about what your talking about. Magazines period? Magazines that hold 1 bullet more than what you can buy the gun with? Twenty round plus magazines? Sixty four and above?
Be specific is required in any gun control debate because of the technical points on which gun laws are written.

[Flagg]

James Holmes used a legally purchased 100 round drum magazine in the Aurora massacre. Could he have built a magazine or bought one illegally? Sure, but you can do plenty of shit illegally. The point, which sailed over your head, is that just owning a large capacity magazine would be illegal, and therefore harder to get. Or does the concept elude you?

It's an irrelevant point, Flagg. With proper practice, which many of these shooters seem to do prior to the act, you can change magazines very quickly or go to backup weapon and the desire to practice would certainly be there if you limited them to ten round mags. Basically, doing so wouldn't make that much of a difference in most situations. It is just as likely that the 100 round mag played a role in Holmes weapon jamming.

We need to stop focusing on the tools and focus on the cause.

Yeah, except Laughner was stopped while... Reloading. There were numerous people who charged at Holmes in Aurora, if he had a 10 round magazine chances are good, not certain, but good that one of the military dudes who ended up blown away by that lunatic would have gotten to him.

And we can easily do both. It's not an either/or proposition.

[Flagg]

James Holmes used a legally purchased 100 round drum magazine in the Aurora massacre. Could he have built a magazine or bought one illegally? Sure, but you can do plenty of shit illegally. The point, which sailed over your head, is that just owning a large capacity magazine would be illegal, and therefore harder to get. Or does the concept elude you?

Did you miss me listing the steps to constructing high capacity magazines? At least with a drum mag you have a shred of a point. But when you say "high capacity magazines" you must clarify about what your talking about. Magazines period? Magazines that hold 1 bullet more than what you can buy the gun with? Twenty round plus magazines? Sixty four and above?
Be specific is required in any gun control debate because of the technical points on which gun laws are written.

Dude, I don't give a fuck that people can illegally make magazines. They can also illegally turn their semi-autos into full auto's with the right knowhow, should those be legal? Hey, I can steal a car and get away with it if I'm smart enough, should grand theft auto be legal now, too?

[Andras]

James Holmes used a legally purchased 100 round drum magazine in the Aurora massacre. Could he have built a magazine or bought one illegally? Sure, but you can do plenty of shit illegally. The point, which sailed over your head, is that just owning a large capacity magazine would be illegal, and therefore harder to get. Or does the concept elude you?

There are millions of AR15 compatible magazines already in the publics hands. If Holmes had used more reliable 20 round magazines the weapon would most likely not have jammed. Most of the Aurora victims were killed with the pump action shotgun and the handgun, not the rifle.

VaTech- handguns
FtHood- handgun
Gabby Giffords- handgun
Aurora- AR15 jammed, most killed with shotgun or pistol
Oregon- AR15 jammed
CT-The Bushmaster rifle was found in the trunk. 2 handguns were used in the school according to the news reports I've seen.

[Stark]

If you don't silently accept the idea that guns do not make murder easier, you can't have a civil discussion, that's why. When you're flat-out told making something harder or more time-consuming is useless in a law-enforcement context, you just need to accept it.

Poor old Americans. It really sums up your nation that the initial response to deadly tragedies is usually 'keep guns legal regardless the cost' or 'omg destroy all guns and imprison all gun owners instantly'. Along with labour law you should just rename yourselves the United States of Black and White Fallacies.

As a hilarious aside (more hilarious than cultural myopia anyway) is that mad killers in the US are so stupid they keep using AR15s. Maybe the national obsession with the M16 Failure Rifle is actually a cunning false-flag operation to encourage moronic killers to use a terrible rifle that will jam on them?

[Kamakazie Sith]

Is there any reason you can't focus on both?

I think it's a waste of time. In the eyes of many you're trying to change one of the most important, if not the most important, of the bill of rights.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Yeah, except Laughner was stopped while... Reloading. There were numerous people who charged at Holmes in Aurora, if he had a 10 round magazine chances are good, not certain, but good that one of the military dudes who ended up blown away by that lunatic would have gotten to him.

And we can easily do both. It's not an either/or proposition.

Kind of. He was stopped because of multiple factors. Poor position, reloading, didn't have a backup weapon. You lower the magazine capacity then those that plan these things will take those factors into consideration. You, and others, are always quick to point out how one instance doesn't make a rule...well... back at ya.

[Stark]

If only people like you hadn't trained them for generations to view the situation this way, I guess. Its not your kids that pay for it, but try to understand that cultural change is possible and often desirable... regardless of how flat-out retarded the gun control idiots are in your country.

[Formless]

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

As far as I'm concerned, everyone talking about Gun Control in this thread are pissing in a circle as wide around as the combined borders of Israel and Palestine. The US cultural stance on gun control is pretty firmly entrenched, and this event isn't going to change very bloody much outside of the states involved. Plus, School shootings generally come from a special kind of crazy person, who doesn't abide by weapons laws or common sense. Most people probably don't realize, for instance, that the Columbine shooters would have done a LOT more damage if their homemade bomb had actually gone off like they originally planned. Buts that's neither here nor there either, and its sad that it has derailed yet another shooting thread.

However, since it is a proposed solution this point should still be addressed: having teachers carry weapons during class just for the HIGHLY RARE event of a school shooting is retarded. It could just as easily intimidate students and parents as defend them, and thus worsen the learning environment for all involved. And besides that, the first time a member of a school faculty goes on a rampage instead of a student, is the moment your solution meets an ignominious end.

[ryacko]

Since guns are banned in China... (you know, police state tyranny and oppression)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/worl ... s/1770395/

A knife-wielding man injured 22 children and one adult outside a primary school in central China as students were arriving for classes Friday, police said, the latest in a series of periodic rampage attacks at Chinese schools and kindergartens.

The attack in the Henan province village of Chengping happened shortly before 8 a.m., said a police officer from Guangshan county, where the village is located.

The attacker, 36-year-old villager Min Yingjun, is now in police custody, said the officer, who declined to give her name, as is customary among Chinese civil servants.

A Guangshan county hospital administrator said the man first attacked an elderly woman, then students, before being subdued by security guards who have been posted across China following a spate of school attacks in recent years. He said there were no deaths among the nine students admitted, although two badly injured children had been transferred to better-equipped hospitals outside the county.

A doctor at Guangshan's hospital of traditional Chinese medicine said that seven students had been admitted, but that none were seriously injured.

Neither the hospital administrator nor the doctor would give his name.

It was not clear how old the injured children were, but Chinese primary school pupils are generally 6-11 years old.

A notice posted on the Guangshan county government's website confirmed the number of injured and said an emergency response team had been set up to investigate the attacks.

No motive was given for the stabbings, which echo a string of similar assaults against schoolchildren in 2010 that killed nearly 20 and wounded more than 50. The most recent such attack took place in August, when a knife-wielding man broke into a middle school in the southern city of Nanchang and stabbed two students before fleeing.

Most of the attackers have been mentally disturbed men involved in personal disputes or unable to adjust to the rapid pace of social change in China, underscoring grave weaknesses in the antiquated Chinese medical system's ability to diagnose and treat psychiatric illness.

In one of the worst incidents, a man described as an unemployed, middle-aged doctor killed eight children with a knife in March 2010 to vent his anger over a thwarted romantic relationship.

[Stark]

Are you fucking serious y/n? Do you believe this is some kind of meaningful point?

If there was ready availability of guns, it wouldn't be 22 injured with 7 admitted to hospital (and thus 15 pretty fucking lightly 'injured'), it'd be people dead. I can just imagine the gunfight at the OK primary school being way less lethal than this crime! :V

[Kamakazie Sith]

If only people like you hadn't trained them for generations to view the situation this way, I guess. Its not your kids that pay for it, but try to understand that cultural change is possible and often desirable... regardless of how flat-out retarded the gun control idiots are in your country.

I disagree. A culture change of this magnitude is impossible at this point. That'd be like suggesting that the people in the middle east, or the bible belt, should consider converting to atheism.