Latest School Shooting

[UncleMike101]

What would be wrong with an incremental step towards control? Say, banning all weapons bar from bolt operated or single fire ones? That way people can possess firearms for defensive purposes, hunting and target shooting and the lethality of firearms overall would be reduced.

The lethality of firearms has absolutely NOTHING to go with the type of action that makes it function.
Common items have been used by ingenious criminals, and others, to make not only cartridge arms, but loose powder arms as well. (Look up Zip guns)
The Viet Cong routinely used bamboo to make one time use firearms to booby trap areas outside of our encampments.
Mankind's propensity for slaughter and mayhem are the true reasons for wars and murder.
The objects that they've used to attain those horrific ends are completely irrelevant and not germane in any way to ones safety or well being.
Prior to the invention of firearms humans were content to slaughter each other by the millions, over many millennia, with pointed sticks, rocks, all manner of edged weapons, bludgeons, and whatever else they could get their hands on, as well as with their bare hands.
We are likely the most inherently violent species to ever inhabit this planet.
Nothing will change until the last human expires.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Thanks for answering the first question. I live in Wisconsin and there is no guarantee that several armed intruders won't break into my house just as there is no guarantee that I won't be struck by a meteorite. I just don't feel the need to be prepared for something that has a very, very, very small chance of happening. What about my second question?

Currently I have one in my pocket, I keep one stashed in case I need it, most are locked up in a safe. They are away from the kids.
What was the point of your second question?

 

[luvsJack]

It must be exhausting living with that level of fear all the time.

M.

No one said anything about living in fear. But break ins are very real and do happen.

Do you not protect your purse or wallet from being stolen when out shopping or similar? Do you keep a sharp eye on children and have safety measures in place when in public or at the beach or a swimming? Do you have an alarm on your car and/or your home? Do any of these things mean you live in fear?

The posters who have their guns for protection only have another level of protection that many of us have at least one level of.

 

[Domo]

The lethality of firearms has absolutely NOTHING to go with the type of action that makes it function.

Oh, but it does. A rapid fire "machine gun" will perpetrate more mayhem than a bolt operation, single fire rifle - more rounds per minute, more targets you can hit a minute. And when you don't care about the accuracy of your target (Las Vegas anyone?) that is all the more true.

[ETA] Special forces used by the British in WW2 highlighted the use of multiple shots. Agents were taught to fire 2-3 rapid shot bursts to the torso to ensure the target had been taken down. More modern forces are taught to fire rapid 3-5 round bursts at a target to maximise lethality (say "banana" or "bunch of bananas".)

 

[robinb]

Currently I have one in my pocket, I keep one stashed in case I need it, most are locked up in a safe. They are away from the kids.
What was the point of your second question?

No point. Just curious since you said that you had a weapon loaded and ready to go with kids in the house and you've put yourself out here on the DIS as a law-abiding gun owner who values his family's safety. I was just curious what methods you used to keep your firearms away from your children. Now I know.

 

[UncleMike101]

Oh, but it does. A rapid fire "machine gun" will perpetrate more mayhem than a bolt operation, single fire rifle - more rounds per minute, more targets you can hit a minute. And when you don't care about the accuracy of your target (Las Vegas anyone?) that is all the more true.

As has been stated by many posters here "machine guns" are virtually never used in crimes in the U.S.
They are heavily regulated and one must pass numerous checks and pay fairly significant amounts of money to own them.
As for the bump fire device used in Las Vegas the people in the fire area were fortunate that the nut job there didn't utilize carefully aimed fire in which case he could undoubtedly have murdered more innocents.
Stuart Whitman, in 1966 at the University of Texas, murdered sixteen and wounded thirty one people from the roof of a school building without using a bump fire device but by instead taking careful aim at each victim.
As I've said before when it comes to violence;
It's the people.
Not the object.

 

[Domo]

As has been stated by many posters here "machine guns" are virtually never used in crimes in the U.S.
They are heavily regulated and one must pass numerous checks and pay fairly significant amounts of money to own them.
As for the bump fire device used in Las Vegas the people in the fire area were fortunate that the nut job there didn't utilize carefully aimed fire in which case he could undoubtedly have murdered more innocents.
Stuart Whitman, in 1966 at the University of Texas, murdered sixteen and wounded thirty one people from the roof of a school building without using a bump fire device but by instead taking careful aim at each victim.
As I've said before when it comes to violence;
It's the people.
Not the object.

Wrong. If a person wants to kill en masse, giving them access to a means to efficiently kill en masse is just wrong, verging on evil.

And no, rapid fire weapons aren't all around the US, but you CAN still buy magazine fed guns, and that's pretty sick.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Wrong. If a person wants to kill en masse, giving them access to a means to efficiently kill en masse is just wrong, verging on evil.

Unfortunately with that statement you'd have to remove all vehicles too

 

[Domo]

Unfortunately with that statement you'd have to remove all vehicles too

Problem is, cars are built for an innocent means and are designed to prologue life. In general, guns are designed to kill, kill and kill.

 

[UncleMike101]

[ETA] Special forces used by the British in WW2 highlighted the use of multiple shots. Agents were taught to fire 2-3 rapid shot bursts to the torso to ensure the target had been taken down. More modern forces are taught to fire rapid 3-5 round bursts at a target to maximise lethality (say "banana" or "bunch of bananas".)

I'm well aware of close combat firearms tactics.
I was a Law Enforcement Academy Certified Combat Firearms Instructor for the last eleven years of my career and I trained many Officers in the effective use of small arms.
I maintain my qualification status to this day.
Those tactics have been taught to Officers for decades except that we trained with six shot revolvers until 1985 when we finally embraced semi automatic handguns.
The drill is called the "Double Tap" and the "Triple Tap" and is still taught today.
With the advent of personal body armor, sometimes worn illegally by Felons, we have had to adapt the training to include a shot to the head if the perpetrator doesn't cease hostility with the first torso shots.

 

[Domo]

Unfortunately with that statement you'd have to remove all vehicles too

Mind you, I can see where you are coming from. Maybe you could make regulations for guns like cars? Practical and physical examinations, licences, laws, continuous enforcement, penalties, laws... I mean, you can't speed, for instance, as cameras and speed traps will catch you and BAM - a fine and points on your licence. Go TOO fast and no more licence. You can't even park in tonnes of places. And you are required to have insurance. So perhaps tighten up gun ownership laws significantly nationwide?

[ETA] Driving is a privilege, not a right. Heck, they even post speed traps on isolated kinks in the road so you have no warning!

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Problem is, cars are built for an innocent means and are designed to prologue life. In general, guns are designed to kill, kill and kill.

I'm not engaging in a discussion on what something is designed or not designed for in that respects but simply put vehicles are used to kill people and in no other way of saying but to kill as many as possible without 100% regards to accuracy. Your statement was "If a person wants to kill en masse, giving them access to a means to efficiently kill en masse is just wrong, verging on evil."

The attack in Nice for example killed 86 people and injured 458 others.

The recent Toronto incident killed 10 people injuring over 12 others.

Barcelona attack killed 13 and injured over 130 others.

The Berlin attack killed 12 people and injured 56 other people.

The NYC attack killed 8 people and injured 11 others.

The Stockholm attack killed 5 people and injured 14 others.

And that's just some in the last few years. That doesn't even count what occurs in the Middle East.

Mind you, I can see where you are coming from. Maybe you could make regulations for guns like cars? Practical and physical examinations, licences, laws, continuous enforcement, penalties, laws... I mean, you can't speed, for instance, as cameras and speed traps will catch you and BAM - a fine and points on your licence. Go TOO fast and no more licence. You can't even park in tonnes of places. And you are required to have insurance. So perhaps tighten up gun ownership laws significantly nationwide?

I can understand where you're coming from but I also understand others. It doesn't mean regulations don't make sense on things, because they do for this and that, but others are correct though in that things can be used as weapons not just guns. We cannot take away or regulate to death (no pun intended) all manners of things that can be used to kill someone. No amount of regulation by the way is going to prevent someone from taking a vehicle and using it as a weapon unless you take away all vehicles by which there will still be ways to kill someone.

 

[Domo]

Let me just provide you with the reason I hate most guns.

I actually own a .177 air rifle. It's a Walther. I'm rather fond of it. Single shot, no magazine, pre-charged, hair line trigger, match operated. It's designed for incredible accuracy and is used for competition purposed. I can achieve 99% accuracy on a regular basis, where each 10 score on a 10 bull target at 25 yards, prone position, is accuracy to within 3mm. Not the best, not the worst. I guess you could say I can hold my own.

I have been military trained by the paras and the police in a number of firearms ranging from pistols (Five-seveNs for example) to light support weapons (Lee Enfield L86s say). And I hated them. They had one purpose - to end life. With each weapon came another style of shooting, another type of lethality. We trained on targets and SAT ranges. Also airsoft excursions to train in advanced warfare with Systema AEGs, but that's pretty like paint-balling, so actually not as bad!

But as I said - I hated them. All they could do was enable the wielder to kill and maim. I can't defend them under any circumstances.

No-one needs many of the devices I was trained in. Certainly the fully automatic firearms - why would you ever need so many rounds per minute? I mean, even when you were lumbered with full-automatic only, we were trained to limit the rounds fired per minute.

Next down the line, we have magazine fed semi-automatics. Still not a fan, but much better. Killing is still enabled to the perpetrator to an unacceptable degree, but at least random "spray and pray" is disabled.

Bolt action or single shot is the most desirable. You can defend yourself in your own household should the need arise and you can exercise your right to target shoot and hunt.

In terms of regulation, we could have some fun there. With cars, you need to pass a practical test and a written test. The practical test is actually harder than you think. You need insurance of course and the police employ the use of camera guns, speed cameras and number plate registration. Break a rule and you will be fined and your licence penalty stricken or worse - revoked. Maybe that could be the first step on a quest to regulation?

But yeah, many years of advanced firearms training in about fifty weapons or different lethality have jaded me.

That is why, in a few paragraphs, you will never catch me holding another instrument of such destruction again.

You won't change my mind.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I'm def. not trying to change minds just having a discussion

With cars, you need to pass a practical test and a written test.

Well actually..that's not entirely true. In my state taking driver's ed exempts you from what you call a practical test--it's actually the reason I took driver's ed..but on a positive note I learned to parallel park which is something my state doesn't require in order to get your license.

A written test is also something that is not needed to renew your license if you have an unrestricted license. I go in, get a new picture, do a quick eye test in which case you need to have 20/40 vision in one eye and pay the amount to renew. Auto insurance is typically transmitted electronically though if it is not you would need to show proof of that.

ETA: I should note I know that's not really the point of your post just providing some information.

 

[Domo]

Well actually..that's not entirely true. In my state taking driver's ed exempts you from what you call a practical test--it's actually the reason I took driver's ed..but on a positive note I learned to parallel park which is something my state doesn't require in order to get your license.

A written test is also something that is not needed to renew your license if you have an unrestricted license. I go in, get a new picture, do a quick eye test in which case you need to have 20/40 vision in one eye and pay the amount to renew. Auto insurance is typically transmitted electronically though if it is not you would need to show proof of that.

It may well be different here to how it is there.

Over here in Domoland, you need a written test - not too hard, it's just to memorise the Highway Code - and a practical - TOUGH, most people fail on their first time around after months of learning.

Your speed is tracked by speed cameras, traps on the bridges on motorways, mobile speed traps and more. If you are guilty of an infraction, you receive a fine and your licence is dinged of some of a very few points. Speed too many times or too much, you are disqualified and banned.

You are required to drive with insurance. If you don't cameras will scan your number plate and you will be arrested and fined or worse.

Here, driving very much is a privilege - not a right.

 

[sam_gordon]

You are required to drive with insurance. If you don't cameras will scan your number plate and you will be arrested and fined or worse.

Here you don't need a license, insurance, or anything to drive. Simply keys to a car. Yes, you'll be doing so illegally, but there is nothing physically preventing you from driving. I hazard a guess that at this very moment, there are thousands of people driving cars and they don't have a license or insurance.

It doesn't matter what you, me, Gumbo, or anyone here think should happen. Until the 2nd Amendment is appealed, guns will be around. Here's some reading for you...
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/what-does-it-take-to-repeal-a-constitutional-amendment.

Anyone who wants to try should feel free.

 

[Domo]

It doesn't matter what you, me, Gumbo, or anyone here think should happen. Until the 2nd Amendment is appealed, guns will be around.

This is sadly true. But you never know, regulation may increase. Thanks to regulation, people can't mince around with fully automatic Steyr Augs or P90s. Both are firearms, after all.

 

[Domo]

Here you don't need a license, insurance, or anything to drive. Simply keys to a car. Yes, you'll be doing so illegally, but there is nothing physically preventing you from driving. I hazard a guess that at this very moment, there are thousands of people driving cars and they don't have a license or insurance.

Sadly, yes, there are uninsured drivers about just as there are people concealing huge knives walking our streets. In the same ways, there are people selling grade-A drugs too. By and large they get caught, but there are always those who try and flaunt the laws that are in place to protect us from harm.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

No point. Just curious since you said that you had a weapon loaded and ready to go with kids in the house and you've put yourself out here on the DIS as a law-abiding gun owner who values his family's safety. I was just curious what methods you used to keep your firearms away from your children. Now I know.

No problem, ask away. Sometimes I will answer right away while other times I may be a little slower. Life gets in the way of my DIS time.

 

[monsterkitty]

As has been stated by many posters here "machine guns" are virtually never used in crimes in the U.S.
They are heavily regulated and one must pass numerous checks and pay fairly significant amounts of money to own them.
As for the bump fire device used in Las Vegas the people in the fire area were fortunate that the nut job there didn't utilize carefully aimed fire in which case he could undoubtedly have murdered more innocents.
Stuart Whitman, in 1966 at the University of Texas, murdered sixteen and wounded thirty one people from the roof of a school building without using a bump fire device but by instead taking careful aim at each victim.
As I've said before when it comes to violence;
It's the people.
Not the object.

First, I agree it's the people not the object.

However, the object does make it easier.
University of Texas - Whitman killed 14 people (one more died from the wounds several years later) and wounded around 30 more. It took him 90 minutes.
Vegas - 58 killed, hundreds wounded in about 10 minutes.
Pulse shooting - 49 killed, 53 wounded in a siege that turned into a hostage situation and lasted 3 hours.
Parkland - 17 killed, 17 injured in 6 minutes
Sandy Hook - 26 killed (plus his mother before he went to the school), first shots were at 9:35, last shot was the suicide shot at 9:40.

Certain weapons allow for more rapid fire, therefore more rapid deaths.