Latest School Shooting

[UncleMike101]

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.

The wonderful thing about freedom is that you are perfectly entitled to your opinions and reasons.
And so am I.
So we'll likely have to agree to have differing outlooks on life.

 

[Domo]

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.

Don't forget the Dunblane school massacre of 1996. It was the final straw for the UK, which banned many types of firearms as a result. Not all of them, just many of them.

The deceased:

Victoria Elizabeth Clydesdale (age 5)
Emma Elizabeth Crozier (age 5)
Melissa Helen Currie (age 5)
Charlotte Louise Dunn (age 5)
Kevin Allan Hasell (age 5)
Ross William Irvine (age 5)
David Charles Kerr (age 5)
Mhairi Isabel MacBeath (age 5)
Gwen Mayor (age 45) (teacher)
Brett McKinnon (age 6)
Abigail Joanne McLennan (age 5)
Emily Morton (age 5)
Sophie Jane Lockwood North (age 5)
John Petrie (age 5)
Joanna Caroline Ross (age 5)
Hannah Louise Scott (age 5)
Megan Turner (age 5)

 

[Domo]

The wonderful thing about freedom is that you are perfectly entitled to your opinions and reasons.
And so am I.
So we'll likely have to agree to have differing outlooks on life.

I guess so.

 

[Planogirl]

"A well regulated militia" I always feel like that part is usually ignored. Even if a militia means everyone then what about the well-regulated part?

 

[Domo]

"A well regulated militia" I always feel like that part is usually ignored. Even if a militia means everyone then what about the well-regulated part?

Planogirl, I wouldn't go there. As an English teacher, I can verify that this qualifier is one of the most grossly overlooked and misinterpreted piece of legislature ever enforced in modern day history. Yet somehow the pro-gun lobby twists and it turns and eventually managed to make it mean that Guns are Good.

You aren't going to fix this overnight.

 

[mummabear]

What’s the point of a regulation requiring that an object be loud. It is possible to go through a waiting period of 6 months to a year, several hundred dollar stamp, a visit with the local law enforcement, all to simply muffle it a few decibels, and that’s just for 1 suppressor, if I want another for a different caliber firearm I have to go through all of that process again. Suppressors do not make a gun silent like in the movies, it simply gets it to a level less likely to damage a persons hearing, similar to a muffler on a car or motorcycle which can be obtained with no tax stamp or waiting period(since people like to compare guns to cars). Seems more like a punishment on law abiding citizens than anything else.

Because in this case, loud alerts others of danger.
People using firearms for sport are welcome to use other hearing protection.
It is not a “several” hundred dollar stamp, it’s $200 the same price r has been since it was introduced in 1934

 

[mummabear]

I'm not engaging in a discussion on what something is designed or not designed for in that respects

But that does matter.
Cars and guns are not comparable.
One society as a whole would struggle to live without a high number of people using them, the other at worst there would be no effect at her we would be safer.

I don’t understand the logic of gun owners who sit here claiming the are responsible owners who want to fight things like mandatory training and passing a competency test, if you are so responsible what are you worried about?

 

[FlightlessDuck]

"A well regulated militia" I always feel like that part is usually ignored. Even if a militia means everyone then what about the well-regulated part?

Some people argue that the amendment is saying that citizens should be allowed to have guns to protect themselves from the well regulated militia.

I think we can all blame the horrible grammar of the Constitution for not making this amendment clearer.

 

[Gumbo4x4]

"A well regulated militia" I always feel like that part is usually ignored. Even if a militia means everyone then what about the well-regulated part?

Well-regulated as in well armed and well trained.

There’s really nothing anywhere in the bill of rights about “regulating” the people in the sense that you mean. It’s about limiting the power of government.

In the end though, the “right” belongs to the people. Ask anyone who’s ever diagrammed a sentence. It really doesn’t matter if the militia was or was not meant to be regulated in terms of “government regulations”, or who was intended to be in the militia. Because, at most, the militia is used as a reason to give a right to “the people”.

Now, that isn’t to say that right cannot be limited today through modern legislation. I just don’t see how the original wording is so often twisted.

 

[UncleMike101]

Well-regulated as in well armed and well trained.

There’s really nothing anywhere in the bill of rights about “regulating” the people in the sense that you mean. It’s about limiting the power of government.

In the end though, the “right” belongs to the people. Ask anyone who’s ever diagrammed a sentence. It really doesn’t matter if the militia was or was not meant to be regulated in terms of “government regulations”, or who was intended to be in the militia. Because, at most, the militia is used as a reason to give a right to “the people”.

Now, that isn’t to say that right cannot be limited today through modern legislation. I just don’t see how the original wording is so often twisted.

In Indiana the People are the militia.
From the Indiana Constitution:

ARTICLE 12. Militia

Section 1. Composition
Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.

 

[Domo]

In Indiana the People are the militia.
From the Indiana Constitution:

ARTICLE 12. Militia

Section 1. Composition
Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.

I hate to say it, but that doesn't clear it up for me really. Do we take the recurring term "militia" as per the Encyclopaedia Britannica definition? The Oxford Dictionary definition? What?

 

[rickybobby]

I think this is apples and oranges.
A pool and a bike have other uses besides killing things. That’s IS the purpose of guns

Let me ask you a question. Say you are out in the woods having a picnic with your family. A big old grizzly bear decides to rain on your picnic, and is attacking you, and your family. Would you like to have a gun in this instance?

 

[Gumbo4x4]

I hate to say it, but that doesn't clear it up for me really. Do we take the recurring term "militia" as per the Encyclopaedia Britannica definition? The Oxford Dictionary definition? What?

Again, it doesn’t matter. Even if the sole reason for the 2nd Amendment were to arm “the milita” (and that’s a big if), the right to keep and bear arms belongs to “the people” - because anyone who’s a member of “the people” is a potential militia member.

 

[rickybobby]

The consensus at this point is no, they can’t be helped. Can they be prevented? Who knows? We still aren’t sure what makes a sociopath or psychopath. Psychopaths are born that way & sociopaths become that. But, since we really can’t know if ppl are born that way or become that way, the 2 words kinda get used interchangeably. It’s the whole nature vs nurture debate. Can they be properly identified & prevented from doing harm to others. I would say no b/c the science isn’t that exact. The theory is that many ppl are sociopaths or psychopaths (some research suggests as high as 1/4 of the general population), but not all are violent or will ever be. The propensity of violence depends on a lot of factors. So then how do you tell who should be locked up of whatever. Most of the time you find out someone is dangerous after they do something. I don’t disagree that better mental health may reduce overall gun violence, but I don’t think it’ll reduce the number of mass shootings. I agree something is not right with someone who would do this, but that’s like serial killers. Most ppl agree something isn’t right with someone who commits those acts, but they’re not mentally ill. Sociopaths & psychopaths like empathy, but they know right from wrong.

Calling BS on the fact that someone who can kill multiple innocents for no reason is not mentally ill.

 

[3 MEN AND A BOAT]

Because in this case, loud alerts others of danger.
People using firearms for sport are welcome to use other hearing protection.
It is not a “several” hundred dollar stamp, it’s $200 the same price r has been since it was introduced in 1934

No it doesn’t, all it does is damage the hearing of those closest to it. If the only advantage is it alerts to danger I have news for you, I could build one in all of a minute with a trip to the store. Anyone intent on doing harm with half a brain could also. Them being restricted only inconveniences a law abiding citizen. I thought I heard a couple years back they raised it to 300, maybe someone tried I’m not sure.
Maybe we should require all cars have sirens and flashing lights to alert pedestrians of the approaching danger.

 

[Domo]

Again, it doesn’t matter. Even if the sole reason for the 2nd Amendment were to arm “the milita” (and that’s a big if), the right to keep and bear arms belongs to “the people” - because anyone who’s a member of “the people” is a potential militia member.

I wish the whole issue wasn't so darn complicated. To further muddy the water, we need to look at context. At the time this amendment was drafted, firearms weren't as sophisticated as they are now. If those who drafted the legislation knew of modern day weapons, would they have changed the language or the delivery? We don't know. It's little things like that that make things all the muddier. And it's very difficult to modernise or repeal a law like this.

 

[mummabear]

Let me ask you a question. Say you are out in the woods having a picnic with your family. A big old grizzly bear decides to rain on your picnic, and is attacking you, and your family. Would you like to have a gun in this instance?

No, I am quite happy with my bear spray.
And give that in my over 30 years of camping and hiking in BC I have never encountered a bear it’s not something I am overly concerned about, and just like we know know what to do in a fire or earthquake, we know what to do if we encounter a bear.

But seriously this is your argument for needing a gun? I might encounter a bear?

 

[Domo]

But seriously this is your argument for needing a gun? I might encounter a bear?

That's an advantage to living in the UK. The worst thing here is an ominous fart.

 

[rickybobby]

No, I am quite happy with my bear spray.
And give that in my over 30 years of camping and hiking in BC I have never encountered a bear it’s not something I am overly concerned about, and just like we know know what to do in a fire or earthquake, we know what to do if we encounter a bear.

But seriously this is your argument for needing a gun? I might encounter a bear?

I have never personally had an encounter with a school shooter, but I think we should be prepared for it. If I'm in those same woods and see the bear attack, don't worry. I will shoot the bear after he has swatted away your hair spray.

 

[UncleMike101]

I wish the whole issue wasn't so darn complicated. To further muddy the water, we need to look at context. At the time this amendment was drafted, firearms weren't as sophisticated as they are now. If those who drafted the legislation knew of modern day weapons, would they have changed the language or the delivery? We don't know. It's little things like that that make things all the muddier. And it's very difficult to modernise or repeal a law like this.

The Founding Fathers knew full well that there would be improvements in virtually every aspect of life in the future.
Remember, several of them were noted scientists of their day and were constantly striving to improve the human condition through the application of sound scientific practices and advancements in technology..
They worded our Constitution as succinctly as possible so as to allow for future changes in society that they knew would occur as they have since the dawn of civilization.
The argument that we "more sophisticated" today is nonsense.
The only difference between us and them is that we have nicer toys and indoor plumbing is more accessible.
And the term "Militia", at least in my State, means exactly what the State Constitution says.
ALL PERSONS over the age of 17, with the limiting exemptions listed.
One could presume from that wording that the intent of the Framers was to include the entire populace.