Chad Feldheimer
Well-Known Member
What action?
Gun Control
- Thread starter larryselbows
- Start date
What action?
Actually, right now is the worst possible time. You're much more likely to go to the far opposite end of the spectrum when the incident is so fresh. There is no rationality at the moment, just raw emotion.
And what evidence?
Another weak example:
https://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
https://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
Patriot Act
larryselbows
Banned
He didn't use his gun. I'm not knocking him though, I think he was right not to.
I think that's a fair assessment. I believe the impact of such testing would be minimal, but would weed out some of the extremes.
One might say that he did exactly what he should have, and may have saved further rampage by his presence; others might say that's wishful thinking and his actions had no real effect. We'll never know for sure, but the timeline and account seems to indicate that the shooter realized he had reached the end of his sick road.
I think the answer to that question is obvious.
it may have been in the NY Times article I quoted, or in a different article, but I read that he used the butt end of one of the guns to break in to the school and started shooting immediately
I'll try to find a link
I'm interested to know, if gun control is the answer, what does that mean? I read a lot about needing to reevaluate gun control, but not a lot about how. There are A LOT of guns out there, so what measures could be implemented AND enforced that would make us safer?
gun control is only one small part of the issue, what about ammunition control? perhaps restricting the sale of high capacity magazines? restricting the sale of those super destructive bullets? I dont' know, it seems we ought to be able to agree on at least some steps that could be taken...
at any rate, here are some links with additional information:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/nyregion/sandy-hook-school-shooting-in-newtown.html
and here's the link I was looking for:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/gunman-kills-20-children-at-school-in-connecticut-28-dead-in-all.html
So this was one of those situations where it really didn't matter what sort of security measures may have been in place to screen visitors to the school...
at any rate, here are some links with additional information:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/17/nyregion/sandy-hook-school-shooting-in-newtown.html
and here's the link I was looking for:
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/16/nyregion/gunman-kills-20-children-at-school-in-connecticut-28-dead-in-all.html
So this was one of those situations where it really didn't matter what sort of security measures may have been in place to screen visitors to the school...
personally I'm not sure it's THE answer in any case...
but there might be things that could be tried that would not really infringe on the "right to bear arms"
I have a question too. I sort of understand people who enjoy the sport and challenge of target shooting, and/or hunting and those who feel they need a gun for protection, but I don't really understand what is meant when someone is said to have a "fascination" with guns...
Aside from their potential to do great bodily harm and/or kill, what is the fascination? Is it a fascination with the mechanics of how a gun works? If so, isn't there some other mechanical device that might be equally fascinating? Is it the loud noise that attracts some people? If so, why not take up the drums? I guess what I'm saying is that I think that for some people, what's so fascinating and appealing about guns is the fact that they do kill and maim. Otherwise, why not shoot blanks? Or an air gun? And why the need for super-damaging bullets and high capacity magazines? Do hunters need them to successfully kill their quarry?
larryselbows
Banned
I think this video pretty much sums it up.
[video=youtube_share;a8UgOvJVol8]https://youtu.be/a8UgOvJVol8
I don't want to participate in this thread or this site, but I feel compelled to address one thing.
Super-destructive bullets and the purchase of large quantities of ammo.
There are many types of ammo. Some of it is lead with a full layer of copper completely covering the cone. That is called "Full-Jacket." That full jacket give the bullet better penetration through things like car doors, light body armor, windows, the thick skin of a boar or bear.
There is "hollow-point" ammo. This ammo usually has a partial coating of copper around the base of the cone and the nose of the cone has been removed and a small indentation exists at the tip of the bullet. This causes the bullet to expand more quickly when it impacts.
Both bullets have been described by gun control advocates as some monstrous innovation intended only to cause greater death and destruction.
A full metal jacket bullet is what our military uses. It penetrates better, but is somewhat less lethal when used against a person wearing no armor. That is because it is more likely to pass through the person and leave a smaller wound because it does not expand as much. The military has no need to kill every enemy soldier dead on the battlefield and wounded soldiers are more taxing on the enemies resources than dead soldiers, so there is some benefit to disabling enemies than in killing them.
Hollow points are better at stopping an non-body armored foe. The bullet's expansion releases almost all of the bullet's force into the person who is shot as well as leaving a larger wound. However, this ammo is particularly poor at penetrating body armor, car doors, or other obstructions. For instance, if you were to fire a hollow point in your apartment at someone attacking you and you missed, the bullet would be much less likely to carry enough force into the neighboring apartment and harm an innocent person. Also, if the person attacking you was particularly large, wearing a leather jacket and hopped up on PCP you may not have enough penetration to stop them in time.
That's just a quick look at two different types of ammo. A factor equally as (if not more) important is the caliber of ammo being used. For instance, almost no body armor can stop a rifle bullet. I'm not talking about "assault-rifles" which is a misnomer as it is predominately used, any rifle, like granpa's old hunting rifle. Use hollow points, soft points, full jacket, whatever. It will most likely penetrate body armor.
On the other hand, hand guns will seldom penetrate good body armor. Besides that, from most of what I've read hollow points are more a marketing ploy in hand gun ammo, as most handguns do not produce the velocity required to cause the ammo to spread in soft tissue. So the bullet usually acts much like a full metal jacket round.
On the contrary, rifle ammo will almost always "mushroom" when it hits tissue. Besides, the force of a rifle bullet will be devastating regardless of ammo type. The best you can hope for if shot by a rifle is that the bullet will pass through you completely carrying much of the force with it.
So again, do you think we should ban the "cop-killing" (hype term) full metal jacket ammo, or the super lethal (hype term) hollow point ammo. I've heard both types should be banned using arguments by people who clearly do not understand the actual performance of ammo in handguns.
On the purchase of large quantities of ammo:
When I purchase a firearm I like to become very proficient in its use. To do this I buy several hundred rounds of ammo and shoot the gun. It is only by shooting the gun several hundred times that I feel competent in its use and confident in the reliability of the firearm. To restrict the number of round I can purchase you would only be reducing my ability to become proficient with that weapon, increasing the chances that I will not use it effectively and/or that I will miss my target, therefore creating greater risk to innocent people.
The statement that guns are only meant to kill is beyond false. Police often use a drawn gun and a verbal command to control a situation. A person holding a gun is typically enough to desuade a would-be attacker from carrying out an attack. The sound of a shotgun being racked will cause a burglar to **** their pants. Guns are meant to push a projectile out the bore and send it in a predictable direction. If guns were only meant to kill then a grenade would be as useful to a police officer as a firearm, as a grenade is as effective at killing as any gun. With a gun you can hit a specific target, or use the treat of the firearm to stop a potential attacker because they and only they could be killed.
thank you for your answers, perhaps there are issues here to discuss - or perhaps not. But at least it's information I didn't have before.
And perhaps there can never be any agreement on these issues and we will just have to accept that these sorts of things are going to happen and that's the price we pay for living in a democracy.
And perhaps there can never be any agreement on these issues and we will just have to accept that these sorts of things are going to happen and that's the price we pay for living in a democracy.
exactly... the deterrence is only because of the bodily harm they can cause...
that's the point.
As for fascination with guns...
As my earlier post might indicate, I like to fully understand the firearms I purchase. It is something that might be used at a critical moment and determine the difference between life and death, for me, my family and for someone who means us harm. I don't have a fascination with killing a person, but I would say that I have an interest in firearms.
In the Navy I was a Fire Controlman. That is a person who maintains, troubleshoots, repairs and operates shipboard weapon systems. My specialty was ship's self-defense weapon systems. Specifically the Phalanx (CIWS) cannon and the RAM Missile system. For both of these weapons no one touched them in any way shape or form other than the people in my work center. We did everything that had anything to do with them. We took care of the the computer control systems, the mechanical devices that moved the weapon, the communication systems that the weapon used, the radar systems (for CIWS but not RAM, RAM relied on shipboard radars and fired missiles that contained their own guidance systems) and we were the ones who used the weapon (as in verifying targets and pushing the fire button). It was a job that absolutely required a certain level of "fascination" with the weapon system that we were tasked with using in the event that someone attempted to destroy the ship I was on and the 6000 people who were on that ship with me, needless to mention the 80+ aircraft.
I also served temporarily in the ships security department. In that job I performed armed patrols of the ship while it was at sea and was a member of the ship's Initial Response Team, which responded to any attempted boarding or whatever other crisis that might arise. In port overseas we also acted a gate guards, inspecting people and vehicles from the local community that had any business on the ship.
Anyway, fascination with a weapon you might rely upon and fascination with killing people are two completely different things. If I am obsessed with killing people I will likely become fascinated with the tools I intend to use, but that does not mean every person who is deeply interested in firearms is a potential killer.
As my earlier post might indicate, I like to fully understand the firearms I purchase. It is something that might be used at a critical moment and determine the difference between life and death, for me, my family and for someone who means us harm. I don't have a fascination with killing a person, but I would say that I have an interest in firearms.
In the Navy I was a Fire Controlman. That is a person who maintains, troubleshoots, repairs and operates shipboard weapon systems. My specialty was ship's self-defense weapon systems. Specifically the Phalanx (CIWS) cannon and the RAM Missile system. For both of these weapons no one touched them in any way shape or form other than the people in my work center. We did everything that had anything to do with them. We took care of the the computer control systems, the mechanical devices that moved the weapon, the communication systems that the weapon used, the radar systems (for CIWS but not RAM, RAM relied on shipboard radars and fired missiles that contained their own guidance systems) and we were the ones who used the weapon (as in verifying targets and pushing the fire button). It was a job that absolutely required a certain level of "fascination" with the weapon system that we were tasked with using in the event that someone attempted to destroy the ship I was on and the 6000 people who were on that ship with me, needless to mention the 80+ aircraft.
I also served temporarily in the ships security department. In that job I performed armed patrols of the ship while it was at sea and was a member of the ship's Initial Response Team, which responded to any attempted boarding or whatever other crisis that might arise. In port overseas we also acted a gate guards, inspecting people and vehicles from the local community that had any business on the ship.
Anyway, fascination with a weapon you might rely upon and fascination with killing people are two completely different things. If I am obsessed with killing people I will likely become fascinated with the tools I intend to use, but that does not mean every person who is deeply interested in firearms is a potential killer.
well, I understand your view and respect your general sort of way. . . . but I just have to comment on this "demcracy" thing. I know that's what schools, the media, and general governance personnel like to say we are. . . . and what most people think we are. . . .
So here's Benjamin Franklin's take on "Democracy": "Two wolves and sheep deciding who's for dinner".
If you fundamentally believe 51% of the people can define the rights of all, you do not believe in liberty, human rights or even have a decent respect for your neighbors. . . . just sayin'. . . . .
And believing that a President should use "Executive Orders" to skirt around legislators who can't get a bill passed would put you in the fascist camp, solidly.
The Thriller
Well-Known Member
https://www.ksl.com/?sid=23430406&n...ringing-gun-to-kearns-school&s_cid=featured-1
Where the hell are the parents? Why the hell don't they lock their weapons up?
Gun Control can start with making it a felony for not having their guns locked up. I believe these parents have lost their 2nd amendment rights. We could have easily had another tragedy. Take the guns away from these dumbass irresponsible parents and fine the hell out of them.
Where the hell are the parents? Why the hell don't they lock their weapons up?
Gun Control can start with making it a felony for not having their guns locked up. I believe these parents have lost their 2nd amendment rights. We could have easily had another tragedy. Take the guns away from these dumbass irresponsible parents and fine the hell out of them.