Kawasaki Concours Forum

Mish mash => Open Forum => Topic started by: B.D.F. on February 14, 2018, 03:48:04 pm

Title: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 14, 2018, 03:48:04 pm
Reports are sketchy right now but it looks like a student went on a shooting spree in either a high school or a group of high schools in Broward County, Florida today. Some fatalities as well as additional injuries reported. Suspect in police custody.

Very sad news. As a parent myself (both children grown but one is married to a public school teacher so I <sort of> have 'someone' in public school in the US), I cannot imagine the anguish of all the parents that have had to go through this ordeal, and of course, the far worse ordeal for some of that that will continue on after today.

I think at this point in our history, about the only effective thing we can do that will have rapid, effective results will be to restrict access to public schools and screen ALL personnel entering via metal detector. Not airport security, just a metal detector that everyone must go through. It is the only thing I can think of that would work immediately and with enough reliability to be worth doing.

If there is anyone on this forum who has anyone involved in this tragedy, my very deepest and sincerest condolences. These things should not happen but they do, and I think we have to now take more stringent measures to try and prevent future instances of this happening.

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: lather on February 14, 2018, 05:29:26 pm
17 fatalities I just heard on TV from Broward County Sheriff. Horribly sad...
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 15, 2018, 12:16:22 am
The BBC is reporting at least 17 fatalities.


What's also sad is that its only the 7th week of the year and this is already the sixth school shooting incident in 2018 that has either wounded or killed students.


Edit: Another news site I've read it on (The Guardian) says its at least the 8th this year

Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Rick Hall on February 15, 2018, 01:23:33 am
This is a hot button subject. I must remind everyone to be civil in you replies, and think twice before you hit the "post" button.

Rick
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Conrad on February 15, 2018, 04:18:55 am
So incredibly sad.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 15, 2018, 05:24:22 am
Thoughts and prayers to Parkland, FL and now let's get back to worshiping our guns.  :banghead:
(Hope that was civil enough.)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 15, 2018, 05:30:55 am
Civil but I'm unable to find any alter with a gun on it.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 15, 2018, 05:39:55 am
My bad. I thought an altar with guns was mandatory for gun enthusiasts. Look in your man cave, if you have one. :)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: VirginiaJim on February 15, 2018, 05:43:56 am
This is a hot button subject. I must remind everyone to be civil in you replies, and think twice before you hit the "post" button.

Rick


Very sound advice...
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 15, 2018, 05:51:09 am
Thoughts and prayers to Parkland, FL and now let's get back to worshiping our guns.  :banghead:
(Hope that was civil enough.)

Nobody here, that I am aware of, worships guns.  Many cherish their rights, though.

So now cue the call for more "gun control" laws that would NOT have prevented this tragedy (in a "gun free zone") but WILL make it harder for good people.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 15, 2018, 06:10:51 am
My bad. I thought an altar with guns was mandatory for gun enthusiasts. Look in your man cave, if you have one. :)
So what do you put on the alter in your batcave?  Maybe it's where you worship at the alter of global warming?
...or where you strive for Nirvana or a socialist utopia maybe. Or are we now both being a bit ridiculous?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 15, 2018, 06:15:52 am
Unfortunately, the reports I have heard have all said that this is the 18th 'school shooting' in the US in 2018 (not all mass shootings of course). Although there are 22,000 high schools in the US. In this same amount of time, we have had over 5,000 road deaths also in the US.

Apparently the perpetrator was not even a student at the school although he had been previously.

Controlled entrances and metal detectors alone would have kept not only the firearm but even the magazines and ammunition from ever having entered the school. While it is unfortunate, I do think it is time we do this at all public schools.

Brian

The BBC is reporting at least 17 fatalities.


What's also sad is that its only the 7th week of the year and this is already the sixth school shooting incident in 2018 that has either wounded or killed students.


Edit: Another news site I've read it on (The Guardian) says its at least the 8th this year
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 15, 2018, 06:38:13 am
Controlled entrances and metal detectors alone would have kept not only the firearm but even the magazines and ammunition from ever having entered the school. While it is unfortunate, I do think it is time we do this at all public schools.

As much as I don't like it, it would be one of the few things that could be done that would have any effectiveness at all.  Uncontrolled "gun free" zones are the most dangerous zones anywhere because bad people carry anyway, and good people usually don't.  Controlled "gun free" zones are a different matter- those are where there is a hard perimeter, has armed guards, and everyone going into the zone is meaningfully searched.  It is very draconian, but that is the trade-off.  Doing such a thing at all public schools would be extremely expensive (and oppressive)...  And it is likely such a perpetrator of violence would just target a different zone.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 15, 2018, 07:45:13 am
I think it's the 18th shooting incident this year in total but the 6th (or 8th depending who's counting) one where people were injured or killed.


The rest were firearms discharges in or around school grounds


Unfortunately, the reports I have heard have all said that this is the 18th 'school shooting' in the US in 2018 (not all mass shootings of course). Although there are 22,000 high schools in the US. In this same amount of time, we have had over 5,000 road deaths also in the US.

Apparently the perpetrator was not even a student at the school although he had been previously.

Controlled entrances and metal detectors alone would have kept not only the firearm but even the magazines and ammunition from ever having entered the school. While it is unfortunate, I do think it is time we do this at all public schools.

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 15, 2018, 07:47:04 am
Oddly enough that's the sort of thing you saw in Mad Max: Beyond the Thunderdome as well as other films of the genre.


Everyone has to hand their weapons in at the door except for the official "security" people


As much as I don't like it, it would be one of the few things that could be done that would have any effectiveness at all.  Uncontrolled "gun free" zones are the most dangerous zones anywhere because bad people carry anyway, and good people usually don't.  Controlled "gun free" zones are a different matter- those are where there is a hard perimeter, has armed guards, and everyone going into the zone is meaningfully searched.  It is very draconian, but that is the trade-off.  Doing such a thing at all public schools would be extremely expensive (and oppressive)...  And it is likely such a perpetrator of violence would just target a different zone.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: turbojoe78 on February 15, 2018, 08:02:51 am
Maybe we could start looking into having the school safety officers being armed.

Good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun.

Maybe even start letting qualified teachers conceal carry?

More good guys with guns to stop bad guys with guns.

I'm very sorry for all the parents and relatives who will have to live through this tragedy.

And, yes, I'm sorry if I have offended any gun control fanatics but my answer is in fact having more guns in the hands of good guys who have been vetted and are qualified to use them.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 15, 2018, 08:21:37 am
My bad. I thought an altar with guns was mandatory for gun enthusiasts. Look in your man cave, if you have one. :)
sanmo, here's a pic of our last NRA meeting...
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 15, 2018, 09:03:40 am
Yep, could be. Again, because this is such a polarizing issue here, the way statistics and facts are presented is often done so in such a way to put a spin on the facts. Of course no school shooting that caused no harm would not be reported as such, it would merely be grouped in with all of them and stated as a final number, while specifically discussing the or one of the most extreme examples.

It is very difficult to analyse data for some of these very hotly disputed issues because it would require doing things such as separating firearm deaths into, say, two groups: negative and positive. Which certainly sounds odd on the surface but consider that many shooting deaths in the US are done with cause and reason by police, and often done in the middle of stopping some type of major crime; such a firearm death is difficult to put into a slot because even if one would try and consider it a beneficial act, the <more> beneficial and desirable outcome would be the capture and arrest of that same individual. Plus any further deaths that that perpetrator might have caused has he / she not been stopped with a firearm are speculative and unprofitable even if obvious.

A difficult subject to discuss because emotions come to the surface almost immediately and cloud all subsequent logic and reason. If we try to eliminate the emotion and move forward with the discussion and reasoning, everyone involved starts to sound like a psychopath.

Brian

I think it's the 18th shooting incident this year in total but the 6th (or 8th depending who's counting) one where people were injured or killed.


The rest were firearms discharges in or around school grounds
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 15, 2018, 09:14:34 am
Let me start off my reply by saying I am firmly on the pro- gun side of the gun control issue.

I am wary of arming any significant number of people in crowded, public places, especially closed- in places, simply because the potential for collateral shooting victims would increase, at least IMO. No amount of training or skill will prevent the shooting of the wrong people by mistake, or even the shooting of unintended people in addition to shooting the 'right' person(s) due to over penetration.

I hear what you are saying, and I do believe it would be effective but I am wary of the peripheral costs of such an approach, again in a densely populated, confined area.

The controlled entrance(s) and metal detectors method is also certainly not desirable in the least but I think it might be the only thing that would prove effective immediately.

The desirable thing would be to simply have people behave better but it does not look like that is possible. Which leaves any and all other methods as being undesirable but perhaps the only way to increase safety. Exactly the way air travel has very negative and undesirable security aspects now in an effort to increase air travel safety.

Frankly, I do not think there really is a 'good' solution to this problem and that is the most unfortunate aspect of all IMO. I do not like problems without solutions and suspect no one does but that is what this appears to be: a problem without a solution, only undesirable ways to address it with unknown costs, though they will be substantial, and unknown benefits.

Brian

Maybe we could start looking into having the school safety officers being armed.

Good guy with a gun stopping a bad guy with a gun.

Maybe even start letting qualified teachers conceal carry?

More good guys with guns to stop bad guys with guns.

I'm very sorry for all the parents and relatives who will have to live through this tragedy.

And, yes, I'm sorry if I have offended any gun control fanatics but my answer is in fact having more guns in the hands of good guys who have been vetted and are qualified to use them.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: jimmymac on February 15, 2018, 03:13:34 pm
I'm glad I'm 50, and not 5.
This world is going nuts.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 15, 2018, 03:51:32 pm
I hear what you are saying, and I do believe it would be effective but I am wary of the peripheral costs of such an approach, again in a densely populated, confined area.

It is a matter of statistical analyses and such.  Yes, having armed guards and teachers DOES increase the likelihood of peripheral damage.  But when the choice is, for example:

1) Lose many good lives by a bad intruder.
2) Lose many fewer good lives by a bad intruder stopped by a good person and in the process possibly a collateral good life.

The choice seems more rational.  Of course, there are many other possibilities.  But I bet if one examines all the outcomes, based on actual situations, one will find out the second choice wins, by a wide margin.  Seeking solution that expects a perfect outcomes all the time is doomed to failure in one or more metrics.

Quote
The controlled entrance(s) and metal detectors method is also certainly not desirable in the least but I think it might be the only thing that would prove effective immediately.

But it is only affordable or practical where the risk is so high that it makes sense.  Some schools already do this- in areas with a history that shows it is necessary.  Otherwise, we are just what I call "fighting lightening".... lightening is random and disastrous but also rare and incredibly unpredictable.

Quote
Frankly, I do not think there really is a 'good' solution to this problem and that is the most unfortunate aspect of all IMO. I do not like problems without solutions and suspect no one does but that is what this appears to be: a problem without a solution, only undesirable ways to address it with unknown costs, though they will be substantial, and unknown benefits.

About the only rational thing to do is to research what causes some students to go haywire.  The same haywire students can stab a bunch of people, run a car over dozens of students in the school playground, or throw a gasoline bomb through a classroom window.  We might not like the conclusions... I can even guess some of them:

* Breakdown of the nuclear family
* Lack of proper parenting
* Lack of morality teaching (in whatever flavor it comes)
* Social media pressures
* Smart phones
* Lack of mental health resources
* Over pampering of students (no child left behind, awards for non-merit, lack of goal settings, etc)
* Lack of discipline and holding people responsible for their actions (instead of the "everyone is a victim game)

So you replace one impossible situation with few answers with a whole bunch of other perhaps somewhat lesser impossible situations with few answers.  I bet those factors are all the same when looking at child suicide.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 15, 2018, 05:41:38 pm
Difficult to address the points in your layered post but the two points I think I can address are 1) the idea of more armed people inside a public school and 2) the cost of controlled and limited entry (basically setting up a manned entrance point where fast screening for metal (metal detector portal only) is done and nothing more. I am absolutely NOT talking about airport level security here but rather a fast scan and pass = enter, fail = [no entry] but no further testing.

I think the screening method is actually the more inherently balanced, enforceable system with fewer unknown risks going forward. Both (a large armed presence and tight entry screening) will cost something but I believe it can be done w/in acceptable parameters.

As to your 'fighting lightening' thought, I actually agree but have a different viewpoint: I call it 'the shotgun fix'. It is not accurate in that it does not pinpoint a specific problem (or threat) and address that problem directly but it is a blanket solution with an extremely high likelihood of absolute success. Again, we probably have different backgrounds but one of my areas of responsibility has been industrial safety, on a machine or production line basis. Basically, how to keep people attached to all their appendages and NOT have their respiration stopped by an automatic machine, procedure or process. The 'shotgun solution' works well here; safety curtains around the [machine, area, production line], be they mechanical or electronic (scanning lasers are wonderful for this) simple stop the machine / line when anything penetrates that barrier. There is no effort to determine if it is a human or a soda can, ANYTHING past a certain point and the line shuts down. This is crude in that it is not selective but it is extremely effective because humans quickly adapt to the situation and do not allow something like a soda can to enter the 'hot zone' because it will stop the line, and someone will be cranky about that. So the people around this system become part of the very regulation needed to make it work.

The idea of screening all personnel entering a public school would be the same: metal detector goes off, you do not get in. It is your responsibility to [not bring] notebooks with metal ring binders with you, not the responsibility of the school or safety personnel to find said notebook and remove it. Metal detector goes off, you do not get in and tomorrow, you should be better prepared to enter school. It would be easy enough to put a metal detector in a pre- entrance room so personnel could check themselves to find out if they can pass or not when they get to the actual testing procedure.

And again the 'shotgun fix' aspect of this is global: it will catch firearms, ammunition, magazines but also knives, metal toes work boots and about anything else that IS NOT NEEDED in a public school.

As to your social fixes and changes, all of that may be an excellent idea also but it will not work in the next 30 days: the metal detector proposal will I believe. But two or more solutions can be used at the same time, even more is fine and the metal detector method does not preclude any other devices or procedures you mentioned nor others yet.

One last point: as far as the statistical analysis, I am afraid that will not work in practice. I am not saying it is a bad idea, in fact I believe it is absolutely correct but the extremely simple emotional approach will kill that with 'what is one child's life worth'. Of course one can put a price on that but the person that says it is done as a public figure of any kind whatsoever. If you do not believe me, ask Ford if the cost of fixing an extremely remote and rare problem with a Pinto could be put into dollars (yes, it is NOT worth $9 per car and that memo, when made public, resulted in some of the very first corporate personnel to be charged with felonies in this country..... ever).

And so the logic of your ideas of acceptable collateral damage done in the name of the 'greater good' will be shouted down en mass when a child is shot or killed by the 'good guy' who also shot the 'bad guy'. It is not that you are not right, it is that that entire idea cannot be sold to the public.

Brian

It is a matter of statistical analyses and such.  Yes, having armed guards and teachers DOES increase the likelihood of peripheral damage.  But when the choice is, for example:

1) Lose many good lives by a bad intruder.
2) Lose many fewer good lives by a bad intruder stopped by a good person and in the process possibly a collateral good life.

The choice seems more rational.  Of course, there are many other possibilities.  But I bet if one examines all the outcomes, based on actual situations, one will find out the second choice wins, by a wide margin.  Seeking solution that expects a perfect outcomes all the time is doomed to failure in one or more metrics.

But it is only affordable or practical where the risk is so high that it makes sense.  Some schools already do this- in areas with a history that shows it is necessary.  Otherwise, we are just what I call "fighting lightening".... lightening is random and disastrous but also rare and incredibly unpredictable.

About the only rational thing to do is to research what causes some students to go haywire.  The same haywire students can stab a bunch of people, run a car over dozens of students in the school playground, or throw a gasoline bomb through a classroom window.  We might not like the conclusions... I can even guess some of them:

* Breakdown of the nuclear family
* Lack of proper parenting
* Lack of morality teaching (in whatever flavor it comes)
* Social media pressures
* Smart phones
* Lack of mental health resources
* Over pampering of students (no child left behind, awards for non-merit, lack of goal settings, etc)
* Lack of discipline and holding people responsible for their actions (instead of the "everyone is a victim game)

So you replace one impossible situation with few answers with a whole bunch of other perhaps somewhat lesser impossible situations with few answers.  I bet those factors are all the same when looking at child suicide.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 15, 2018, 08:10:14 pm
(basically setting up a manned entrance point where fast screening for metal (metal detector portal only) is done and nothing more. I am absolutely NOT talking about airport level security here but rather a fast scan and pass = enter, fail = [no entry] but no further testing.

If you have no hard perimeter/entry and nothing but an unarmed guard and a metal detector (the typically seen "cheap" solution), it will accomplish nothing but negatives.  That is what I call "security theater."  All the fear, all the inconvenience, and much of the cost, with little effectiveness.  The teenager could walk up to detector, pull out a gun, shoot the guard dead, and then start shooting everyone he wants inside.  Alternatively, he could work with someone else and gain access through any emergency exit, be inside in seconds and shoot anyone he likes, unchallenged.  This is exactly the type of nonsense one sees at concert halls, theme parks, and the like.

Quote
The idea of screening all personnel entering a public school would be the same: metal detector goes off, you do not get in.

That is, indeed, technologically possible, with a multi-layer entry system.  An open entry, then protection of the guard and internal personnel behind bullet-proof walls/glass/doors that are only opened to people who pass.  It really requires 3 doors/chambers to work (insecure entry/waiting, testing, and secure)- one main entry area, then one that allows a single person into a holding area and the door behind them locks, they are screened by automated equipment, and then the third door unlocks.  But this is typically big, expensive, and very slow entry..... one person at a time, rinse and repeat.  And if someone can't pass through due to false positives, it holds up everyone.  Unless, of course, you now replicate the 3-door system in parallel for additional entrances.  $$$!  Next point of irony..... since it now takes a long time to get in, there will be lots of people in the main insecure area waiting to get in.... still with no armed "good" people.  Bam, instant target area.  Same with parking lot.  Same with buses.

Quote
As to your social fixes and changes, all of that may be an excellent idea also but it will not work in the next 30 days:

Correct.  The hard problems take a long time to solve.  Many of the things that have created the situation have taken decades of social problems. 

Quote
One last point: as far as the statistical analysis, I am afraid that will not work in practice. I am not saying it is a bad idea, in fact I believe it is absolutely correct but the extremely simple emotional approach will kill that with 'what is one child's life worth'.

Exactly.  When people think with emotion and not reason, nothing will work.  We just end up with emotional laws that do little but create a lot of collateral damage.

My ending point is the same as been heard a lot- "the only thing that really stops a bad person with a gun, is a good person with a gun."  Same with deterrents.  Same with nuclear weapons.  You can't un-release the genie from the bottle.  Fortunately, there are typically a LOT more good people than bad.... or we really would be screwed.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 16, 2018, 12:36:55 am
As stated previously elsewhere  (& which I don't think you would necessarily disagree about) the problem for you guys is that the genie is out of the bottle as far as guns are concerned. All you can do is try & chip away at the problem. Sadly there is no quick/easy fix.


The sheer number of guns available is quite frankly staggering:

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,0001 to 310,000,0002


The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) per 100 people in the United States is 101.05

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states (http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states)


++++++++++++++

"The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) reported in a national survey that in 1994, 44 million
people, approximately 35% of households, owned 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were
handguns.Seventy-four percent of those individuals were reported to own more than one
firearm.

According to the ATF, by the end of 1996 approximately 242 million firearms were
available for sale to or were possessed by civilians in the United States. That total includes
roughly 72 million handguns (mostly pistols, revolvers, and derringers), 76 million rifles, and 64
million shotguns

By 2000, the number of firearms had increased to approximately 259 million: 92 million handguns, 92 million rifles, and 75 million shotguns.

By 2007, the number of firearms had increased to approximately 294 million: 106 million handguns, 105 million rifles, and 83 million shotguns."
Source: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf)


Comparison on guns per 100 Head of population


Rank   Country   Guns per 100 residents   
1    United States   101
2    Serbia   58.21   
3    Yemen   54.8   
4    Cyprus   36.4   
5    Saudi Arabia   35   
6    Iraq           34.2   
7    Uruguay   31.8   
8    Norway   31.3   
9    France   31.2   
10    Canada   30.8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country)

Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 16, 2018, 03:08:46 am
As stated previously elsewhere  (& which I don't think you would necessarily disagree about) the problem for you guys is that the genie is out of the bottle as far as guns are concerned.

Even if you took away almost all guns, they still exist and would still have to be addressed.  It is worthy to note another view about guns, too.  They are an equalizer.  Pretty much all other weapons require some type of physical strength or stamina to wield, allowing the physically powerful to dominate everyone else.  And the more physical strength/stamina the more effective such domination becomes.  Guns allow women to be more equal with men, and the less wealthy, weaker, older, sicker, or disabled to have effective protection.  In a strange sort of way, it fits nicely with the concept of democracy and voting equality (1 citizen, 1 vote).

Quote
The sheer number of guns available is quite frankly staggering:

Most [USA] gun owners have many guns each.  It isn't paranoia or hoarding- you can really only use one at any given time and, for carry, 1 or 2 is all that is generally practical.   I think four factors explain it best:  1) Many owners upgrade several times as they look for what they like the most or as newer technology comes available and retain what they previously purchased.  2) Many are collectors and like the variety and design.  3) There are different roles for different weapons- one might have a home protection gun, a full-sized carry gun, a smaller concealed gun, hunting guns, several target guns, training guns, etc.  4) Some engage in repair and restoration and/or speculation.

I am not a collector nor hunter and have only what I need for different roles (#3, above), which currently amounts to 4 roles (home defense, large carry, small carry, target) with one upgrade duplication for a total of 5, all pistols.

If I had the money (purchase, upkeep, taxes, insurance) and space, I would certainly have more than one car and one motorcycle :)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Conrad on February 16, 2018, 04:06:52 am
10 years to the day for the shooting at NIU. I was there and it was like a war zone.

http://northernstar.info/news/years-later-learning-from-tragedy/article_ee5d9982-120a-11e8-975d-d76e2644553b.html (http://northernstar.info/news/years-later-learning-from-tragedy/article_ee5d9982-120a-11e8-975d-d76e2644553b.html)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: turbojoe78 on February 16, 2018, 06:05:04 am

The sheer number of guns available is quite frankly staggering:

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,0001 to 310,000,0002

"The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) reported in a national survey that in 1994, 44 million
people, approximately 35% of households, owned 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were
handguns.Seventy-four percent of those individuals were reported to own more than one firearm.

By 2007, the number of firearms had increased to approximately 294 million: 106 million handguns, 105 million rifles, and 83 million shotguns."
Source: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL32842.pdf)

Comparison on guns per 100 Head of population


Rank   Country   Guns per 100 residents   
1    United States   101
2    Serbia   58.21   
3    Yemen   54.8   
4    Cyprus   36.4   
5    Saudi Arabia   35   
6    Iraq           34.2   
7    Uruguay   31.8   
8    Norway   31.3   
9    France   31.2   
10    Canada   30.8

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country)

That could be the reason no other country has tried to invade the USA in many, many years.

And when I posted about allowing teachers and or other persons in schools to be allowed to conceal carry, my thought was to remove the idea of schools being gun free zones.  I know it would not deter all bad guys intent on shooting up a school from trying to do so ... but ...

If we could save just one child ...
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 16, 2018, 06:33:29 am
Yes, we have a lot of firearms, pretty randomly spread throughout the population and area of the country (with some notable exceptions). Of course whether or not this is 'a problem' or simply the way the US works is in the eye of the beholder I suppose.

And there are other, smaller genies waiting in the wings that you may not even be aware of in the UK.

The first thing is that a 'firearm' must be defined, and we have done so in the US by calling the 'part' that carries the serial number, usually the frame, "the gun"; all the other parts are simply machine parts that are not in any way firearms. So let us take the so often talked about AR-15 rifle for example; it is the lower receiver that is the 'firearm', with the great majority of the parts of that particular piece of hardware, including the difficult to manufacturer as well as the heat- treated parts [not] being part of the firearm. That means one can buy, own, sell, make, alter, possess or anything else, any and all of the parts of an AR-15 except the lower receiver.

Bear with me, I am going somewhere with this, I promise. Now, that lower receiver starts out as a block of aluminum, which is clearly not any part of a firearm but then goes through a manufacturing process to become the receiver that IS the firearm, and that part is regulated. But at what point does that piece of aluminum become a receiver? It is when it moves past the 80% point of the manufacturing time that it takes to make one. So, make an AR-15 lower but leave out the fire control group holes, leave a portion of the inside un=machined and it is NOT a receiver and firearm.

With the advent of CNC controlled machinery, and the refinement and general miniaturization of these machines over the years, they have become quite small, relatively inexpensive, and depending on software, easy to use. Now a complete 3-D milling machine needed to turn an 80% lower receiver into a 100% lower receiver is less than $1,000, not regulated in any way (hey, it is a machine tool, like a drill press) and can be set up to run on anyone's kitchen table.

So, tomorrow morning make "assault rifles" illegal in the US and an entire cottage industry will crop up to supply them illegally anyway. Oh there will be no where near the number being sold today, that is a fact, and statistically it would look great: AR-15's being introduced to the civilian population would drop by 99.9% but any gang- banger or worse yet, anyone hell- bent on doing great damage will be able to get one from some local 'back yard' operation. Sure the gov't will shut down and arrest those doing this, but others will spring up and just continue along. It will be like the US's War on Drugs, which ain't goin' all that great either: we intercept a huge amount of illicit drugs coming in to the US and those who supply them just ship even larger quantities.

So as you correctly point out Mike, the genie is long out of the bottle and has spread to all the corners of this country, there are other, smaller genies waiting in the wings to become a serious problem. Removing the firearms such as was done in the UK and Australia simply is not an option in the US, at least not one that would be effective for decades or centuries, but there are now other ways that will easily  supply that incredibly small part of the population that is actually causing all the firearm issues.

That leaves population controls or as maxtog suggested, changing the 'hearts and minds' of those few who are causing all of the violence. Changing the hearts and minds, or at least identifying the problem individuals would be best but is also the most difficult and given our Constitution, it would be difficult- to- impossible to 'stop' those deemed a threat anyway. Which leaves controlling the population as the only thing that has a chance of working; more security, less personal liberty, traded for less violent outbursts.

Brian

As stated previously elsewhere  (& which I don't think you would necessarily disagree about) the problem for you guys is that the genie is out of the bottle as far as guns are concerned. All you can do is try & chip away at the problem. Sadly there is no quick/easy fix.

<snip>

Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 16, 2018, 06:58:17 am
I'd be interested in info on a sub thousand dollar 3D mill.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 16, 2018, 10:26:07 am
I cannot point you toward any specific one(s) but I have seen them made to be used specifically for this purpose. They are not general purpose machine centers but specialized 'hobbyist' tools meant to do that one job only. It is more of a very elaborate and accurate router than a true milling machine but the point holds: they are available, unregulated and are not likely to ever be regulated; how would anyone regulate machine tools or power tools?

The ones I have seen are basically variations on this theme: https://www.banggood.com/2417-3-Axis-Mini-DIY-CNC-Router-Wood-Craving-Engraving-Cutting-Milling-Desktop-Engraver-Machine-240x170x65mm-p-1209292.html?gmcCountry=US&currency=USD&createTmp=1&utm_source=googleshopping&utm_medium=cpc_elc&utm_content=zouzou&utm_campaign=pla-us-ele-Laser-Equipment-pc&gclid=CjwKCAiAn5rUBRA3EiwAUCWb28D7fsEvXh4_GWo2VIIJ4Fp_LEBv_bHIEw4y-VrzSKTWHbHn0f5y5hoC_qwQAvD_BwE&cur_warehouse=CN (https://www.banggood.com/2417-3-Axis-Mini-DIY-CNC-Router-Wood-Craving-Engraving-Cutting-Milling-Desktop-Engraver-Machine-240x170x65mm-p-1209292.html?gmcCountry=US&currency=USD&createTmp=1&utm_source=googleshopping&utm_medium=cpc_elc&utm_content=zouzou&utm_campaign=pla-us-ele-Laser-Equipment-pc&gclid=CjwKCAiAn5rUBRA3EiwAUCWb28D7fsEvXh4_GWo2VIIJ4Fp_LEBv_bHIEw4y-VrzSKTWHbHn0f5y5hoC_qwQAvD_BwE&cur_warehouse=CN)

For a more general purpose hobbyist machining center, you have to reach a little beyond a thousand dollars but not much; there are small gantry- type, general purpose machines available for under $2,000 pretty readily. Most of them are really routers but will cut steel albeit slowly and only with small cutters. A quick search will turn up a lot of examples like this one:https://www.sign-in-china.com/products/16215/new_professional_4060_desktop_cnc_router_drilling_milling_machine.html?ex=USD&utm_source=Googleshopping_us&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=googleshopping&gclid=CjwKCAiAn5rUBRA3EiwAUCWb2w4u3_cSar2X0c_8ZLiKVuJPJXSUXY2M8jmtlfgIBRvLFxX1_q3sRxoCoNEQAvD_BwE

And there are some pretty slick and surprisingly rugged and rigid kits out there that work pretty well, again for under a thousand dollars or so.

Back to the 80% receivers: a quick search will also turn up finished receivers being made as an illegal 'cottage industry' already; if the firearms are banned, there will just be a larger, still illegal, cottage industry that will crop up to supply them. In my own opinion, firearm regulation will not yield acceptable results; the recent Las Vegas terrorist attacker spent a great deal of time, money and effort to collect the hardware he used and I believe he would have done the same thing but gone a slightly different route had the hardware he purchased not been available legally. We tried to prohibit alcohol one time before too and that did not really work out IMO.

Back to the original topic, I would really like to see  some improvement here; my first grandchild is on the way and soon enough will be in the school system as well as 'out in the world' in the US. So it is not a case of 'us' or 'them', it is 'we' and I would like to see my grandchild(ren?) enter an improved environment. Put crudely and simply: I do not want to get 'that phone call' either, and we are all in this together so I am motivated to seek real improvements.

Brian

I'd be interested in info on a sub thousand dollar 3D mill.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Dualsport on February 16, 2018, 10:56:56 am
Limited entry is the only solution--and the person defending at the limited entry should be behind adequate bulletproof cover and have the adequate defensive/repelling capability until the calvary can arrive. I am willing to open my wallet to achieve this. It must be done at every school, even the most rural. That means State level action and Federal funding assistance.
Too many issues and too many logistics to get caught up in to rationalize anything else. Further delay is unconscionable. Yes, we need to help or identify those that are troubled, but we are a heartbeat away from ISIS -- or some other insanity from attacking our hallowed places. Bombs, shootings, stabbings -- or any other kind of assault we haven't envisioned or encountered yet, must occur outside the walls of the Public school.
I received a traffic ticket in Springfield, MO and traveled there to fight the ticket. Our Oklahoma courthouse has one Sheriff Deputy (looks like he's the newest member of the force) and a metal detector, and it's simply inadequate protection against a determined combattant. However, the courthouse in Springfield is practically safeguarded with efficient limited access, e.g. it's efficient to get in, but not armed. If their Sherriff doesn't press a button, then the bulletproof revolving door will not allow access. It did not look impractical and should not be financially prohibitive.   We just have to do it. Even if you don't buy what I'm sell'n as any kind of a long-term solution, it is a practical first step. If in places we're willing to defend a courthouse to this level, then how could we ever rationalize not doing so to protect our most valued in society our children.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 16, 2018, 11:17:42 am
That could be the reason no other country has tried to invade the USA in many, many years.


That or you only have to worry about the Crazy Canucks & the Mad Mexicans ;)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 16, 2018, 11:54:09 am
Limited entry is the only solution--[...]Even if you don't buy what I'm sell'n as any kind of a long-term solution, it is a practical first step. If in places we're willing to defend a courthouse to this level, then how could we ever rationalize not doing so to protect our most valued in society our children.

I think most rational people would come to the same conclusion (one I said earlier, and Brian, and you are echoing)- you can't greatly protect an uncontrolled area- one where good people are likely not armed and bad people could be.   Interestingly, it is even possible for schools to NOT be gun-free zones and still work fine.  The objective should be to keep "bad" armed people out.  Licensed gun owners (those with a valid/active concealed carry permit) are actually among the most law-abiding and "good" people out there... armed or not.  Such a controlled-entry system could allow licensed  armed people into the secure area with little concern.  Of course, EMOTIONALLY, most people just can't deal with those facts.

I will just repeat an interesting statistic I used in the other thread as an example....  people might easily accept the idea of allowing an armed police officer into such a secured zone, yet scoff at the idea of a licensed civilian.  Police are who society trusts with guns, and demands they be armed to "protect us."  We think of them as having passed all kinds of tests of their character and ability.   And yet, as good (generally) as police officers are, police officers commit 700% more felonies than licensed, armed civilians!  In Texas, a comparison of all crimes lets that number soar to 1000% more than licenses civilians.  Guns are not the problem, it is who has them.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler (https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler)
https://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/comparing-conviction-rates-between-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/ (https://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/comparing-conviction-rates-between-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Nosmo on February 16, 2018, 01:01:05 pm
That could be the reason no other country has tried to invade the USA in many, many years.


Actually, the U.S. is being invaded continually.  "Illegal immigration" is a poor term and disguises the fact that if you enter the country LEGALLY, then yes, you are an immigrant.  If you enter ILEGALLY then you are in fact, an invader.


The news quote regarding 18 school shooting is disingenous as it includeds ANY discharge of a firearm within school property or close by even if no students involved:

http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/15/jeff-greenfield/mostly-false-18-us-school-shootings-so-far-2018-an/ (http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2018/feb/15/jeff-greenfield/mostly-false-18-us-school-shootings-so-far-2018-an/)



If guns are THE problem, then how come, with the millions of rounds fired at shooting ranges in this country, very few are shot/killed at a those locations?  And mostly by accident.

https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-die-annually-at-shooting-ranges-in-the-US (https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-die-annually-at-shooting-ranges-in-the-US)



Schools are poorly designed for defense or evacuation.  I haven't been in a school since I graduated in 1973, but my recollection combined with news pictures says that they all have rooms with ONE door that opens to a hallway.  And the windows are not designed for easy egress.  There is no way out for students in the case of fire or threat except to go down that hallway, meaning slow evacuation, follow-the-slowest-leader style.  A shooter just has to walk down the hall and let the victims come out or go into the room and commence slaughter as the victims have no other way out.  Better would be an outside door in each room is ALWAYS LOCKED and that only opens OUT, so each room could be emptierd rapidly, let the kids push the door open and run like hell.  Sheltering inside is only minimally effective, and once the shooters learn that people hide in closets then they just start shooting into the closets.  I can't imagine there is much inside a school that will stop a rifle round.  I've shot .223 through a lot of stuff and it penetrates pretty well.


Figuring out how to stop producing psychopaths would help a lot, but I have no idea how to go about that.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 16, 2018, 01:25:56 pm
Figuring out how to stop producing psychopaths would help a lot, but I have no idea how to go about that.

If you do, you would certainly earn a Nobel prize. 

https://psychcentral.com/blog/differences-between-a-psychopath-vs-sociopath/

Unfortunately, it seems most of these rare acts of extreme and senseless violence are, indeed, committed by psychopaths and sociopaths.  Even more unfortunate is that the best science can tell, people are born with varying degrees of psychopathic tendencies.  The real slippery slope is that we are getting better at detecting who actually is higher or lower on the scale, even at an early age.  I have seen programs that claim an FET brain scan can spot psycho/sociopaths.... the common trait being that they cannot empathize correctly with others and that actually shows clearly in the scans when questioned about certain topics.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Rhino on February 16, 2018, 01:32:30 pm
The BBC is reporting at least 17 fatalities.


What's also sad is that its only the 7th week of the year and this is already the sixth school shooting incident in 2018 that has either wounded or killed students.


Edit: Another news site I've read it on (The Guardian) says its at least the 8th this year

Just a tad misleading: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.82ea612a8cf5 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.82ea612a8cf5)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Rhino on February 16, 2018, 01:34:03 pm
I am wary of arming any significant number of people in crowded, public places, especially closed- in places, simply because the potential for collateral shooting victims would increase, at least IMO. No amount of training or skill will prevent the shooting of the wrong people by mistake, or even the shooting of unintended people in addition to shooting the 'right' person(s) due to over penetration.

Arming civilian guards has worked to stop school shootings in Israel.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 16, 2018, 01:57:14 pm
On this I disagree: psychopathy is not a binary (Positive or Negative) state but a sliding scale. Further, some amount of psychopathy is actually desirable in many instances and functions in society; those following statistical analysis vs. emotional reaction are demonstrating psychopathic behavior.

Also, given our constitution, what exactly would we do about sociopaths / psychopaths anyway? Due process and all that will stop preemptive action on the part of almost all official agencies and systems currently in place. 'Innocent until proven guilty' really gets in the way of pre- prosecuting those [perhaps more likely] to commit crimes vs. those [less likely to commit crimes] before any crime is committed. Unless we are willing to toss the entire Constitution, and I personally am not willing to do that for any amount of increase in perceived safety (as it will be false safety anyway but the traded freedoms will most certainly be gone, most likely forever).

Further, I am not sure it is truly psychopaths that are the real problem. I believe it may well be people perhaps outside the 'normal' behavioral envelope, but then again perhaps not, who are having either a crisis situation or are reaching the end of a long- term, building, crisis situation. Could this perpetrator of this FL tragedy have been steered through some type of counseling / oversight and then back toward an acceptable existence? I am not sure that is NOT the case. I have no reason to believe that that man is a psychopath at all really. And I think it is really dangerous to think that a very small segment of our society are the only ones that will and have caused us harm due to a major psychological defect; normal people in a time of crisis are far more likely to present the larger danger I think. For every Ted Bundy, a true psychopath that no amount of help or oversight would have worked on, IMO, there are hundreds or thousands of psychologically 'normal' people who 'snap' or 'overload' for some period of time.

But we are straying from the topic at hand I think, and that is what can and / or should be done about these recent events in public schools. As I believe the emotional response will carry the day, we will have to do something, effective or not, so we should try and make what we do as effective as possible while staying w/in the limits of our own laws and overall rules. Which brings me all the way back to what can be done immediately and is most likely to be effective [not foolproof or 100% effective but simply effective]. And again I propose a very simple, limited access portal to public schools will address this issue w/in a matter of weeks if we choose to do it. To add a portal onto every single public school in the US is within the realm of possibility, would use standard construction materials and practices, and readily available and well- proven devices such as metal detectors. The fine points are not really far less important such as operators behind bullet proof glass or not; what is important is that only those who can pass through a metal detector without setting it off are allowed to enter the second and final part of the entrance portal and actually enter the school proper.

Will it be a P.I.T.A.? Yep. Will it be costly (monetarily, as well as wasted time)? Yep. But it would also be effective IMO and be a good return on the effort and money expended in putting in such mechanics.

Is it reprehensible that elementary schools should require dual- station, secure entry points with metal detectors? Yep. But it is 2018 and the idea of living in the good ole' days of the 1950's is gone, so this is the real world that we must deal with IMO.

And beyond all of that, as I said before, any or even many other options can be refined, put into place, discussed, and so forth AFTER the entrance portals are in place in front of public schools. This restriction would in no way affect our ability or the desire to do other things to enhance safety and with a little luck, better address the root cause(s) of these situations. But right now, this month, I believe it offers the best way to address the situation of violent outbursts in public schools in the US.

Brian

If you do, you would certainly earn a Nobel prize. 

https://psychcentral.com/blog/differences-between-a-psychopath-vs-sociopath/

Unfortunately, it seems most of these rare acts of extreme and senseless violence are, indeed, committed by psychopaths and sociopaths.  Even more unfortunate is that the best science can tell, people are born psychopathic or not.  The real slippery slope is that we are getting better at detecting who actually is one, even at an early age.  I have seen programs that claim an FET brain scan can spot psycho/sociopaths.... the common trait being that they cannot empathize correctly with others and that actually shows clearly in the scans when questioned about certain topics.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 16, 2018, 02:15:20 pm
On this I disagree: psychopathy is not a binary (Positive or Negative) state but a sliding scale.

We probably don't disagree at all.  I shouldn't have worded it as a yes/no, I know it is variable, just paying the price now for sloppy/quick posting.  I just edited it, to help with that.  And yes, it can actually be "positive" in some ways (when on the lower end of the scale and with proper nurture).  I spent hours researching it years ago, and it is quite fascinating.

Quote
Also, given our constitution, what exactly would we do about sociopaths / psychopaths anyway?

That was my "slippery slope" disclaimer.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 16, 2018, 02:15:31 pm

Quote from: mikeyw64 on Yesterday at 12:16:22 am
Quote
The BBC is reporting at least 17 fatalities.


What's also sad is that its only the 7th week of the year and this is already the sixth school shooting incident in 2018 that has either wounded or killed students.


Edit: Another news site I've read it on (The Guardian) says its at least the 8th this year

Just a tad misleading: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.82ea612a8cf5 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.82ea612a8cf5)

I never said there had been 18 school shootings this year.


The news reports that I referenced were that this was the 6th or 8th this year here there had been injuries or fatalities which ties in with the Washington Post article.


"Just five of Everytown’s 18 school shootings listed for 2018 happened during school hours and resulted in any physical injury"
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 16, 2018, 02:20:06 pm
"Just five of Everytown’s 18 school shootings listed for 2018 happened during school hours and resulted in any physical injury"

Everytown is notorious for extreme exaggeration and misleading interpretation of statistics.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 16, 2018, 02:27:55 pm
For whatever it is worth Mike, please note that 'Everytown', which is really 'Everytown for Gun Safety' is a hard- left, anti- gun faction that has the goal of unilateral personal disarmament. Started by and still largely financed by former N.Y.C. mayor Michael Bloomberg.

I am not saying they are good nor bad, merely pointing out that the information from them is coming from a very staunchly left (anti- gun) group, just as any information from the NRA would be from a very staunchly right (pro- gun) group. As a non- American, I just wanted you to be aware of where this information is sourced and the fact that they have a very direct, very deliberate and very, very hard- line view on this issue. As does a considerable faction of US news reporting agencies, with the majority seeming to be left- leaning at the current time.

Again, we are wading hip- deep into an extremely derisive, polar issue here in the US. In fact, I am amazed that this thread is 1) still open and 2) still has not been moved to the arena. My compliments to all who are participating, as well as certainly some who are not participating but would do so with perhaps too 'heavy a hand'.

Brian

Just a tad misleading: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.82ea612a8cf5 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_story.html?utm_term=.82ea612a8cf5)


I never said there had been 18 school shootings this year.


The news reports that I referenced were that this was the 6th or 8th this year here there had been injuries or fatalities which ties in with the Washington Post article.


"Just five of Everytown’s 18 school shootings listed for 2018 happened during school hours and resulted in any physical injury"
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 16, 2018, 02:39:12 pm
Hey, I think this conversation is going EXTREMELY well considering the topic so no need to apologize IMO.

I am especially wary of the slippery slope and try to take the Constitution literally as much as possible. Even the parts that are unpleasant to me, personally. So while there is a hot debate going on now as to whether or not the FBI did not act sufficiently or properly (I have no reason to believe that is correct BTW, I am sure they get a gazillion 'tips' per day about some 'dangerous individual' and it is the easiest thing in the world to 'Monday morning quarterback' them after the fact), I further wonder exactly what they could have / would have done about it. There is a fine line between free speech and making threats and I am not nearly smart enough to find it, much less apply it to the vast public. ?? So while this person's published statements may seem obvious now, I remain confident that there are literally thousands of FaceTwit instances of a person's fingers getting way ahead of his / her actual intentions.

We must remember that it is not unlawful to be distasteful, or obnoxious in the US of A. We do not yet have thought police nor am I hopeful that we ever will or even should. For all of the banter about 'doing something' given certain behaviors and statements (but not actions), we still have to usually wait until someone actually does something 'bad' before acting against that individual and especially, removing or limiting his / her rights.

If solutions to problems such as these were easy, we would already have them in place.

Brian

We probably don't disagree at all.  I shouldn't have worded it as a yes/no, I know it is variable, just paying the price now for sloppy/quick posting.  I just edited it, to help with that.  And yes, it can actually be "positive" in some ways (when on the lower end of the scale and with proper nurture).  I spent hours researching it years ago, and it is quite fascinating.

That was my "slippery slope" disclaimer.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 16, 2018, 02:45:42 pm
Seems like the fbi screwed the pooch twice on this one.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 16, 2018, 02:57:20 pm
Only reason I quoted everytown is it was quoted in the Washington Post article which was being used to demonstrate that I was incorrect about claiming 18, which actually I hadn't ;)


Even Everytown only has 5 school shootings in hours this year which is in line with what was stated in my post (although Possibly the BBC & The Guardian were using them as source, its not clear).

The 18 figure (which ironically I believe actually came from yourself initially in this thread which is maybe where Rhino got confused) ) includes such things as the suicide at a school which had been closed for 7 months


For whatever it is worth Mike, please note that 'Everytown', which is really 'Everytown for Gun Safety' is a hard- left, anti- gun faction that has the goal of unilateral personal disarmament. Started by and still largely financed by former N.Y.C. mayor Michael Bloomberg.

I am not saying they are good nor bad, merely pointing out that the information from them is coming from a very staunchly left (anti- gun) group, just as any information from the NRA would be from a very staunchly right (pro- gun) group. As a non- American, I just wanted you to be aware of where this information is sourced and the fact that they have a very direct, very deliberate and very, very hard- line view on this issue. As does a considerable faction of US news reporting agencies, with the majority seeming to be left- leaning at the current time.

Again, we are wading hip- deep into an extremely derisive, polar issue here in the US. In fact, I am amazed that this thread is 1) still open and 2) still has not been moved to the arena. My compliments to all who are participating, as well as certainly some who are not participating but would do so with perhaps too 'heavy a hand'.

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 16, 2018, 03:15:22 pm
Yep, it was me who said that this was the 18th "school shooting" of 2018. And that was probably a very misleading report I should not have quoted as I did not research it at all before I posted that- shame on me (seriously).

Now, to turn a completely different corner in this discussion: while tragedies such as this Florida shooting get vast amounts of attention, they are relatively rare and statistically almost insignificant in actual fact. I am not minimizing the pain and suffering of the victims or their families, nor am I minimizing this tragedy in any way but the fact is that the risk of an American to be shot in a public school approaches zero in actual fact. It is very emotionally moving but in reality, does not reflect much actual risk in the US of attending our public school system.

Just like air travel, the safest way to commute by far, it gets an abnormal amount of attention when there is an air carrier (airliner) accident simply because of the scale of the death involved in a single incident. But the real danger of travel is and always has been automobiles, though they rarely make the national news.

Which brings us to the really hard question that no one wants to state aloud: do we <really> have a gun problem in the US or is it merely exaggerated emphasis on a meaningless statistic? The Concorde went from being the one of the safest public accessible aircraft to one of the deadliest aircraft after a single accident killing all on- board..... is that really meaningful data or is it just an irrelevant statistic?

If I have in any way inadvertently accused you of any misdeed or miss- statement in this thread, I apologize Mike and certainly did not mean to do so. Again, my entire purpose in this thread is to try and discuss potential advances regarding public school safety without knocking anyone or any group. I bear no one ill- will and am not trying to force my beliefs on anyone else. But this is a very contentious issue in the US, brought to a very fine point right now by this last weeks' tragedy in Florida and so it is somewhat difficult to discuss in a detached way, at least for a lot of us in the US I think. I know it is for me: I want all Americans to be as safe as possible of course, and abhor the death of anyone that is not inevitable (we have heart disease and cancer to kill us off- we do NOT NEED to kill each other!), especially children and yet I believe in, support and try to follow our Constitution at the same time.

Brian

Only reason I quoted everytown is it was quoted in the Washington Post article which was being used to demonstrate that I was incorrect about claiming 18, which actually I hadn't ;)


Even Everytown only has 5 school shootings in hours this year which is in line with what was stated in my post (although Possibly the BBC & The Guardian were using them as source, its not clear).

The 18 figure (which ironically I believe actually came from yourself initially in this thread which is maybe where Rhino got confused) ) includes such things as the suicide at a school which had been closed for 7 months
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 16, 2018, 03:20:34 pm
It wasn't you that got confused :)




If I have in any way inadvertently accused you of any misdeed or miss- statement in this thread, I apologize Mike and certainly did not mean to do so.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 16, 2018, 03:25:19 pm
But I get your point about scale Brian.

In an earlier post I stated there were circa 300 million firearms available to US civilians.
For the same year as those figures there were just over 12k homicides involving firearms (ie excluding suicides, legal shootings, accidental discharges etc)


Expressed as percentage of available firearms that 12k is 0.004%

In the UK using the same sort of figures it's 0.00014%

Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 16, 2018, 03:41:13 pm
Far, far better than I can articulate it: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-perspec-chapman-mass-shooting-assault-weapons-0218-20180216-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chapman/ct-perspec-chapman-mass-shooting-assault-weapons-0218-20180216-story.html)

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 16, 2018, 05:28:19 pm
Yep, it was me who said that this was the 18th "school shooting" of 2018. And that was probably a very misleading report I should not have quoted as I did not research it at all before I posted that- shame on me (seriously).

But you didn't do it intentionally, like Everytown does it all the time.  So you are forgiven!  The only scary and typically relevant statistic is (1) bad kills good.  But most any statistic Everytown and their like throws around include (2) bad kills bad, (3) one kills self, and (4) good kills bad.  To me (and most like me) (1) being horrible/tragic/unacceptable/dangerous,  (2) being "whatever, you reap what you sow", (3) being "sad but happens", and (4) being perhaps "yay!"  And they know it matters tremendously in their inaccurate messages because 2-4 often account for a supermajority of the shootings.  Then we can further muddy the water when they include "wounding" and even further when it includes "intimidation" or even just "shots fired" hitting nothing.  Oh, and involving schools, another one of their favorites is to lump in gun violence that might technically be on school GROUNDS (like a sidewalk) but had no involvement at all with students or even teachers, and usually not even during school hours.

Quote
Now, to turn a completely different corner in this discussion: while tragedies such as this Florida shooting get vast amounts of attention, they are relatively rare and statistically almost insignificant in actual fact.

Not really a new corner... remember my "Fighting Lightening"....  We humans seem to be programmed to horribly skew risk calculations by emotional reaction, not by examining rational facts.  It is exactly the same with the "war on terror."  More people are killed by bees or lawnmowers every year in the USA than foreign terrorism.  And yet we now spend billions and billions of dollars, scare everyone constantly, and even suspend Constitutional rights in the name of protection from terrorism.

Quote
the risk of an American to be shot in a public school approaches zero in actual fact. It is very emotionally moving but in reality, does not reflect much actual risk in the US of attending our public school system.

And thus, doesn't necessarily warrant spending billions of dollars turning schools into oppressive, high security zones?  There is one quick and easy way to greatly reduce school mass shootings and deaths.  One that costs the government nothing and can be implemented almost instantly.  One that not only offers resistance to such events, but even major deterrence from them even happening in the first place.  One that "does something" : Allow good people to have guns there.

Quote
Which brings us to the really hard question that no one wants to state aloud: do we <really> have a gun problem in the US or is it merely exaggerated emphasis on a meaningless statistic?

I already said it out loud, more than once, actually :)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 16, 2018, 06:54:54 pm
To put it simply.... We have armed guards to protect our airplanes and airports. We have armed guards to protect the court houses, judges and lawyers. We have armed guards in the mall  to protect the retail sales and products. We have armed guards to protect the factories, office buildings and other real property. We have armed police patrolling the streets and highways. We have the greatest military on earth to protect the country. But for some bizarre reason we won't do what is necessary to protect our children. Speaks volumes about our society.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 17, 2018, 05:51:40 am
.... But for some bizarre reason we won't do what is necessary to protect our children. Speaks volumes about our society.

How about a simple solution of regulating the sale of assault weapons or not rolling back regulations banning sale of weapons of mentally ill persons? Speaks volumes about a segment of our society, indeed.....
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 17, 2018, 06:01:41 am
Nobody here, that I am aware of, worships guns.  Many cherish their rights, though.

So now cue the call for more "gun control" laws that would NOT have prevented this tragedy (in a "gun free zone") but WILL make it harder for good people.

I'm sure you are aware of the use of metaphors. If you insist on being literal, perhaps the following rewrite will be to your taste.

"Thoughts and prayers to Parkland, FL and now let's get back to celebrating/venerating our guns.  :banghead:"
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 17, 2018, 06:09:49 am
So what do you put on the alter in your batcave?  Maybe it's where you worship at the alter of global warming?
...or where you strive for Nirvana or a socialist utopia maybe. Or are we now both being a bit ridiculous?

Am unsure whether you are using "worship" and "alter" (sic) literally or metaphorically, but in any case your suggestions for my altar are not worship-worthy. Best I can do is hope for Nirvana and utopia and a reduction in global warming.  One way to prevent a discussion from becoming ridiculous is to stop shooting from the hip. (More gun-speak for your enjoyment)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 17, 2018, 06:33:49 am
Even if you took away almost all guns, they still exist and would still have to be addressed.  It is worthy to note another view about guns, too.  They are an equalizer.  Pretty much all other weapons require some type of physical strength or stamina to wield, allowing the physically powerful to dominate everyone else.  And the more physical strength/stamina the more effective such domination becomes.  Guns allow women to be more equal with men, and the less wealthy, weaker, older, sicker, or disabled to have effective protection.  In a strange sort of way, it fits nicely with the concept of democracy and voting equality (1 citizen, 1 vote).

Most [USA] gun owners have many guns each.  It isn't paranoia or hoarding- you can really only use one at any given time and, for carry, 1 or 2 is all that is generally practical.   I think four factors explain it best:  1) Many owners upgrade several times as they look for what they like the most or as newer technology comes available and retain what they previously purchased.  2) Many are collectors and like the variety and design.  3) There are different roles for different weapons- one might have a home protection gun, a full-sized carry gun, a smaller concealed gun, hunting guns, several target guns, training guns, etc.  4) Some engage in repair and restoration and/or speculation.

I am not a collector nor hunter and have only what I need for different roles (#3, above), which currently amounts to 4 roles (home defense, large carry, small carry, target) with one upgrade duplication for a total of 5, all pistols.

If I had the money (purchase, upkeep, taxes, insurance) and space, I would certainly have more than one car and one motorcycle :)

Interesting that guns are viewed as an equalizer even with adequate law enforcement (police). Without getting too personal, since you have been candid about being vertically challenged, did you encounter juvenile bullying and did that motivate your purchase of a variety of handguns? In my mind, one handgun to protect against home intruders is justifiable. Also, military veterans, especially combat veterans (with safeguards against PTSD) would have a moral high ground for gun ownership.
I know the Second Amendment is relevant and important to many people, but they did not have the AR-15 in 1791.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 17, 2018, 06:39:19 am
How about a simple solution of regulating the sale of assault weapons or not rolling back regulations banning sale of weapons of mentally ill persons? Speaks volumes about a segment of our society, indeed.....

1) So called "assault weapons" are no more dangerous than typical hunting rifles.  They are just "scary looking".   The AR-15 (which is what is generally meant by the non-sense term "assault weapon") is just the common, default, popular, modern, non-military, non-automatic, multipurpose rife of this century.  The rounds it shoots are actually pretty weak.  What makes it so popular is that it is extremely reliable, has wide multi-manufacturer support and compatibility, and lots of available accessories (lights, scopes, handles, straps, lasers, etc); the same accessories also available for every other design of rifle.

2) All gun sales are very much regulated, already.

3) It is already illegal to buy, own, possess, or use guns for a long list of persons.

4) What is being rolled back is not selling to "mentally ill persons", it is to people that could be CLASSIFIED as "mentally ill" when, in fact, that is not at all what was being done.  Having someone else do your finances doesn't make one mentally ill.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 17, 2018, 06:54:40 am
1) So called "assault weapons" are no more dangerous than typical hunting rifles.  They are just "scary looking".   The AR-15 (which is what is generally meant by the non-sense term "assault weapon") is just the common, default, popular, modern, non-military, non-automatic, multipurpose rife of this century.  The rounds it shoots are actually pretty weak.  What makes it so popular is that it is extremely reliable, has wide multi-manufacturer support and compatibility, and lots of available accessories (lights, scopes, handles, straps, lasers, etc); the same accessories also available for every other design of rifle.

2) All gun sales are very much regulated, already.

3) It is already illegal to buy, own, possess, or use guns for a long list of persons.

4) What is being rolled back is not selling to "mentally ill persons", it is to people that could be CLASSIFIED as "mentally ill" when, in fact, that is not at all what was being done.  Having someone else do your finances doesn't make one mentally ill.

What sort of hunting requires a semi-automatic rifle and related inventions like the bump stock? The regulations and restrictions that you refer to are riddled with loopholes. Being classified by a health professional as mentally ill is how you identify a mentally ill person, no? Cannot expect them to voluntarily carry a sign proclaiming mental illness. What does having your finances done by someone else have anything to do with mental illness?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 17, 2018, 06:58:06 am
Interesting that guns are viewed as an equalizer even with adequate law enforcement (police).

When seconds matter, the police are just minutes away!

Quote
Without getting too personal, since you have been candid about being vertically challenged, did you encounter juvenile bullying and did that motivate your purchase of a variety of handguns?

No.  I wasn't bullied any more than most anyone else.  Actually, I wasn't bullied much at all.  I don't think being 1-2" shorter than the average male of my generation made any difference.  Owning a handgun is a precaution no different than wearing all proper gear on my bike, even though I have never had an accident.  Buying a generator before I even ever lost power for an extended period.  Or having locks and alarms on my house, even though I have never been burglarized or home-invaded.

Quote
In my mind, one handgun to protect against home intruders is justifiable.

And when not in the home?  And why does having 2 or 4 or 6 make it any different?

Quote
Also, military veterans, especially combat veterans (with safeguards against PTSD) would have a moral high ground for gun ownership.

So military veterans should have more rights than other citizens?

Quote
I know the Second Amendment is relevant and important to many people, but they did not have the AR-15 in 1791.

They also didn't have electricity, phones, TV, Internet, tasers, cars, motorcycles, tear gas, hedge funds, nuclear weapons, or vaccines.  So far, I think the Constitution has stood the test of time well, even though it is often ignored or corrupted.  The AR-15 is the musket of our time, just like a 15 round semi-automatic handgun is the blunderbuss/Duval/Sharpe pistol of our time, just like the car is the horse and carriage of our time.  Free speech on the Internet is protected now the same as on parchment paper hundreds of years ago.  During THEIR time, their guns were the most dangerous personal/common weapon they would encounter on the streets.  You will note the Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" it doesn't say "to keep and bear arms only of the type or power of this writing."
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 17, 2018, 07:02:44 am
How about a simple solution of regulating the sale of assault weapons or not rolling back regulations banning sale of weapons of mentally ill persons? Speaks volumes about a segment of our society, indeed.....
Please explain precisely what you're talking about here. Or are you repeating what you heard?

Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 17, 2018, 07:14:42 am
What sort of hunting requires a semi-automatic rifle


What sort of motorcycle riding requires 0-60 in 3 seconds?
What sort of car driving requires cruise control?
What sort of house living requires 3 bathrooms?

Quote
The regulations and restrictions that you refer to are riddled with loopholes.


Which would be what?  The infamous "gun show loophole"??  I would be glad to shred that to pieces with facts and statistics, if needed...

Quote
Being classified by a health professional as mentally ill is how you identify a mentally ill person, no? Cannot expect them to voluntarily carry a sign proclaiming mental illness.


I can tell you are completely unfamiliar with what was done, why people are upset, and why it is being done away with.  If a veteran had their income check sent to someone else that helps with managing their finances, THAT WAS BEING REPORTED AS MENTAL ILLNESS!  And to add insult to injury, there was no due process in removing someone's Constitutionally guaranteed rights!

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444582/no-gop-did-not-just-repeal-background-check-system-or-give-guns-mentally-il (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444582/no-gop-did-not-just-repeal-background-check-system-or-give-guns-mentally-il)

If they can do that, what is next on the list of "mental illness?"  Telling your doctor you are depressed?  Frustrated?  Tired?  Telling a nurse?  Telling a healthcare clerk?

What DOES constitute "mental illness" is being in a mental hospital or being actually CLINICALLY diagnosed with a RECOGNIZED mental illness by a competent doctor.  But that isn't what was happening.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 17, 2018, 07:20:16 am
Darn max, I was wondering if Mr. sanmo could actually tell us about the mental health thing or if he was stuck on talking points.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 17, 2018, 07:20:57 am
.....
So military veterans should have more rights than other citizens?

They also didn't have electricity, phones, TV, Internet, tasers, cars, motorcycles, tear gas, hedge funds, nuclear weapons, or vaccines.  So far, I think the Constitution has stood the test of time well, even though it is often ignored or corrupted.  The AR-15 is the musket of our time, just like a 15 round semi-automatic handgun is the blunderbuss/Duval/Sharpe pistol of our time, just like the car is the horse and carriage of our time.  Free speech on the Internet is protected now the same as on parchment paper hundreds of years ago.  During THEIR time, their guns were the most dangerous personal/common weapon they would encounter on the streets.  You will note the Constitution says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" it doesn't say "to keep and bear arms only of the type or power of this writing."

In this matter, I trust military veterans to have the proper moral compass and training needed for responsible gun ownership. Remember the "well regulated militia" aspect of the Second Amendment?

What do any of the wonderful (and not so wonderful) innovations that you enumerated have to do with interfering with the benefits of the Bill of Rights. If the US Constitution is a living document the right conferred to bear arms should not be an unfettered right. Cigarettes are not illegal today solely because they have been in use for centuries. Knowing what we now know about its harmful effects, it would be banned if attempted to introduce it as a new product today.


Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 17, 2018, 07:51:46 am
What sort of motorcycle riding requires 0-60 in 3 seconds?
What sort of car driving requires cruise control?
What sort of house living requires 3 bathrooms?


Meaningless analogies and I can give trite answers to each of them. You did not answer my question.

Quote
Which would be what?  The infamous "gun show loophole"??  I would be glad to shred that to pieces with facts and statistics, if needed...


Private sales on the internet. For example, the Las Vegas gunman was able to illegally purchase armor-piercing bullets and the vendor got nabbed only because his fingerprints were found on the shipment.

Quote
I can tell you are completely unfamiliar with what was done, why people are upset, and why it is being done away with.  If a veteran had their income check sent to someone else that helps with managing their finances, THAT WAS BEING REPORTED AS MENTAL ILLNESS!  And to add insult to injury, there was no due process in removing someone's Constitutionally guaranteed rights!

[url]http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444582/no-gop-did-not-just-repeal-background-check-system-or-give-guns-mentally-il[/url] ([url]http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444582/no-gop-did-not-just-repeal-background-check-system-or-give-guns-mentally-il[/url])



If a SS recepient (not just a veteran) had their finances being managed due to a mental impairment then they would get flagged. By pushing veterans as the rallying point, the entire "mentally ill" restriction was rolled back?

Quote
If they can do that, what is next on the list of "mental illness?"  Telling your doctor you are depressed?  Frustrated?  Tired?  Telling a nurse?  Telling a healthcare clerk?

What DOES constitute "mental illness" is being in a mental hospital or being actually CLINICALLY diagnosed with a RECOGNIZED mental illness by a competent doctor.  But that isn't what was happening.


Ahh.....the familiar slippery slope argument.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: turbojoe78 on February 17, 2018, 08:01:38 am
In this matter, I trust military veterans to have the proper moral compass and training needed for responsible gun ownership. Remember the "well regulated militia" aspect of the Second Amendment?

What do any of the wonderful (and not so wonderful) innovations that you enumerated have to do with interfering with the benefits of the Bill of Rights. If the US Constitution is a living document the right conferred to bear arms should not be an unfettered right. Cigarettes are not illegal today solely because they have been in use for centuries. Knowing what we now know about its harmful effects, it would be banned if attempted to introduce it as a new product today.

Cigarettes don't kill people ... people kill people!

Wait ... cigarettes do kill people ... we must BAN them to save people from harming themselves.   >:(

Knowing what we now know about its harmful effects, it would be banned if attempted to introduce it as a new product today.

Then there was the invention of the E-Cigarette introducing a brand new way to ingest nicotine and kill ourselves.   :'(


Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: turbojoe78 on February 17, 2018, 08:14:20 am
Private sales on the internet. For example, the Las Vegas gunman was able to illegally purchase armor-piercing bullets and the vendor got nabbed only because his fingerprints were found on the shipment.

sanmo, could you point out to us, any of our current gun laws, or any you would like to have added that would have stopped that ILLEGAL purchase.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 17, 2018, 08:24:26 am
In this matter, I trust military veterans to have the proper moral compass and training needed for responsible gun ownership. Remember the "well regulated militia" aspect of the Second Amendment?



That's a very good point that's often overlooked.


So what is the definition of "militia"

"(in the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=militia&oq=militia&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=militia&oq=militia&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)



Ok so maybe a good starting point is to remove weapons from anybody who isn't eligible by law for military service.


That's fully in line with the word & spirit of the second amendment isn't it ?


Problem is as I read it the only legal requirement to join the US Military is  that ", you must either be a US citizen, or you must be a legal permanent immigrant, physically living in the United States, with a green card."  so actually that's probably a non starter

https://www.thebalance.com/us-military-enlistment-standards-3354003

Ok one that might offend a a group is to automatically exclude anyone who is not "able bodied" from owning a firearm as by the definition at the top  they are not eligible to join a Militia


And then I started thinking, is there a legal definition the the US Codes about what a Militia is and it turns out there is

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246)

"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."

Edit Insert : Ah I found the Dick Act (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903) as well in relation to legal definition of the US Militia

Ok so  to summarise the 2nd amendments states that for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia that citizens can keep & bear arms.

Given that by US definition to be a member of the Militia in  the US you have to be male & between 17 & 45 or female and in the National Guard.

Nobody else should need to own or keep firearms , so sorry Brian etc, Hand em in as the Rule books say you don't need them ;)


Footnote , there is a proviso to the Age requirement which extends the Age limit to 64 for former regular members of the US Armed forces so basically nobody male  under the age of 17 or over 45 (64 for ex Forces regulars) thjat is not able bodied or any females not a member of the National Guard   has the right to keep a firearm as by definition in the USC they cannot be a Member of the Militia

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32/313 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/32/313)


Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 17, 2018, 08:28:18 am
In this matter, I trust military veterans to have the proper moral compass and training needed for responsible gun ownership.

Really?  Just like police?  Did you read my previous posting about that topic?  So the government should grant itself (remember, military and police are employees and thus part of the government) more rights than the citizens they are suppose to serve?

Quote
Remember the "well regulated militia" aspect of the Second Amendment?

That is a preamble and has nothing to do with the right.  Almost every Constitutional scholar and the Supreme court, agree on that.

Quote
What do any of the wonderful (and not so wonderful) innovations that you enumerated have to do with interfering with the benefits of the Bill of Rights. If the US Constitution is a living document

The the US Constitution is NOT a "living document."  The way it is supposed to change is only through Constitutional Amendment.  Not the whims of the time.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 17, 2018, 08:36:32 am


That is a preamble and has nothing to do with the right.  Almost every Constitutional scholar and the Supreme court, agree on that.



The 2nd Amendment as ratified is one sentence. To be preamble  (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=preamble&oq=preamble&aqs=chrome..69i57.2387j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)it would need to consist of one or more sentences or paragraphs.


However I'm sure somebody wll pop up with the relevant judgements at some point ;)


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Edit

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment (https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/second_amendment)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 17, 2018, 08:37:42 am
Meaningless analogies and I can give trite answers to each of them. You did not answer my question.


Actually, I did.

Quote
Private sales on the internet


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/07/report-federal-agents-try-show-ease-illegal-online-gun-purchases-fail-72-attempts-2-years/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/01/07/report-federal-agents-try-show-ease-illegal-online-gun-purchases-fail-72-attempts-2-years/)
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/3/most-illegal-attempts-to-buy-guns-online-fail/ (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jan/3/most-illegal-attempts-to-buy-guns-online-fail/)
https://reason.com/blog/2018/01/05/gao-agents-tried-72-times-failed-to-buy (https://reason.com/blog/2018/01/05/gao-agents-tried-72-times-failed-to-buy)

Quote
If a SS recepient (not just a veteran) had their finances being managed due to a mental impairment then they would get flagged. By pushing veterans as the rallying point, the entire "mentally ill" restriction was rolled back?


If a law/procedure/regulation is that fragile/bad/poor/unfair/abusive/unconsitutional then yes, it needs to be rolled back.  Perhaps a different law/procedure/regulation could be put in place.  Many alternatives have been offered, those with appropriate procedures, safeguards, definitions, and due process.

Quote
Ahh.....the familiar slippery slope argument.


Ahh, the familiar dismissal of another, actual example of how a law WAS used incorrectly and DID create a slippery slope.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Rhino on February 19, 2018, 06:20:12 am
For example, the Las Vegas gunman was able to illegally purchase armor-piercing bullets and the vendor got nabbed only because his fingerprints were found on the shipment.

Do you have a link to this? I'd like to know more about illegal "armor-piercing" .223 bullets. I could be wrong but I don't think such a thing exists. Regular ball ammo might be considered  "armor-piercing" because it doesn't mushroom as much as a hollow point or soft point. And I suppose some states have some sort of ban on them but not Colorado or Texas. I know NJ has a ban on hollow points, but that is the exact opposite of armor-piercing. But don't you gun control types want to ban hollow point as well as "armor-piercing"? Wouldn't that be a total ban on ammunition?

Also, almost any centerfire rifle ammo will penetrate kevlar body armor without military ceramic plates. Therefor wouldn't all hunting ammo be considered "armor-piercing"?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 19, 2018, 06:28:27 am
Do you have a link to this? I'd like to know more about illegal "armor-piercing" .223 bullets. I could be wrong but I don't think such a thing exists. Regular ball ammo might be considered  "armor-piercing" because it doesn't mushroom as much as a hollow point or soft point. And I suppose some states have some sort of ban on them but not Colorado or Texas. I know NJ has a ban on hollow points, but that is the exact opposite of armor-piercing. But don't you gun control types want to ban hollow point as well as "armor-piercing"? Wouldn't that be a total ban on ammunition?

Also, almost any centerfire rifle ammo will penetrate kevlar body armor without military ceramic plates. Therefor wouldn't all hunting ammo be considered "armor-piercing"?


.223 caliber was the only weapon in Paddock's arsenal?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-las-vegas-shooting-ammunition-seller-20180202-story.html (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-las-vegas-shooting-ammunition-seller-20180202-story.html)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 19, 2018, 06:34:11 am
I do not know if this is unique to us "gun control types", but I was sickened to see pics of the PoS from the Parkland shooting being arraigned with his public defender appearing to comfort him with her arm over his shoulder. Is that part of the job or did her maternal instincts kick into high gear?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Rhino on February 19, 2018, 06:47:51 am
.223 caliber was the only weapon in Paddock's arsenal?

[url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-las-vegas-shooting-ammunition-seller-20180202-story.html[/url] ([url]http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-las-vegas-shooting-ammunition-seller-20180202-story.html[/url])


Interesting article. I notice they don't give any details of what the armor piercing ammo was. They say something of an "incendiary capsule" on their noses. Tracer bullets have the incendiary charge in the tail which is ignited from the propellent. Yes I have seen .223 tracers. But neither are illegal in Colorado or Texas. Definitely illegal to fire a tracer on all public property due to fire danger. I have fired .50 calibre API "armor piercing incendiary" ammo in Colorado on a private range. There were multiple law enforcement officers there. It's not illegal. I have a lot of questions for the whole article.

This is something I have seen numerous times in the press. Things like "didn't have a license for the gun" and "had explosives in the house". In most states there is no such thing as a license to own a gun. And is perfectly legal to use muzzle loaders which use black powder. Perfectly legal to reload your own ammo using smokeless powder. Perfectly legal to have fertilizer. This is what a lot of lazy reporters do, they setup straw men to push an agenda.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 19, 2018, 06:49:03 am
I do not know if this is unique to us "gun control types", but I was sickened to see pics of the PoS from the Parkland shooting being arraigned with his public defender appearing to comfort him with her arm over his shoulder. Is that part of the job or did her maternal instincts kick into high gear?
It looked like she was trying to set the framework for having the killer be perceived as a victim.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Rhino on February 19, 2018, 06:57:37 am
I do not know if this is unique to us "gun control types", but I was sickened to see pics of the PoS from the Parkland shooting being arraigned with his public defender appearing to comfort him with her arm over his shoulder. Is that part of the job or did her maternal instincts kick into high gear?

Sickened me as well. I have first hand experience with this behavior. A man that premeditatedly murdered 2 people and a lawyer and social worker fawning over him like he was the victim.  :pukeface:
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 19, 2018, 07:46:46 am
I believe the way it is being reported, and the wording of the charge against the ammunition seller is leading to incorrect conclusions: as far as I know, he was not charged because the ammunition was armor piercing or tracer types but because he was 'manufacturing and selling ammunition without a manufacturing license', which is illegal in and of itself. So perfectly legal ammunition is illegal if made (loaded or re-loaded) by anyone who is not properly licensed.

As to the AP aspects; military 5.56 AP is perfectly legal for civilian purchase, possession and use, at THIS time. It has been illegal in the past, perhaps during more than one time- period but I am going by memory here. Either way, it is readily available to anyone is the US unless it is illegal in some states. It is readily identified by the green tip of the projectile.

The ammunition seller is an engineer for Honeywell BTW and not what anyone (or most at least) would think of as a criminal but he did violate a technical 'fine line' of the law, has been charged, and will almost certainly be prosecuted because of the nature of the Las Vegas crime. In extreme situations, anyone and everyone around the periphery of the actual event falls under scrutiny and the most intensive persecut..... er, I mean prosecution imaginable. And this has nothing to do with firearms but any event seen as a tragedy, such as 'The Station' nightclub fire, which is just a couple of miles away from me. 

As to the soft-points or hollow-points, I do not <believe> they are legal anywhere in the US with hollow-points commonly used for target shooting, especially long distance target shooting (they are the type of projectile that is the most inherently accurate), and soft point ammunition being used for hunting almost in all cases, at least in rifle calibers.

Brian

Do you have a link to this? I'd like to know more about illegal "armor-piercing" .223 bullets. I could be wrong but I don't think such a thing exists. Regular ball ammo might be considered  "armor-piercing" because it doesn't mushroom as much as a hollow point or soft point. And I suppose some states have some sort of ban on them but not Colorado or Texas. I know NJ has a ban on hollow points, but that is the exact opposite of armor-piercing. But don't you gun control types want to ban hollow point as well as "armor-piercing"? Wouldn't that be a total ban on ammunition?

Also, almost any centerfire rifle ammo will penetrate kevlar body armor without military ceramic plates. Therefor wouldn't all hunting ammo be considered "armor-piercing"?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 19, 2018, 07:56:13 am
Your second point is not correct- the ammunition was only illegal to be purchased because it was allegedly 'manufactured' (reloaded apparently) by a person who was not licensed to manufacture ammunition. The ammunition itself was and is legal to the best of my knowledge, and would remain perfectly legal had it been reloaded by the end user himself.

As to your third point, yes, the attempt to block S.S. recipients who had their allotments directly sent to someone else on their behalf due to them not being competent or able to receive the payments directly was attacked as 'the government wants to ban guns for the elderly' (or perhaps 'the retired', or even 'those receiving Social Security). It was skewed, and apparently on purpose. The right uses the identical techniques to resist new anti- gun legislation that the left does in trying to get it passed, such as trying to show that some surrounding, related events, such as the purchase of "armor piercing ammunition" is illegal. Same game, different slants.

I agree with your last statement: there is no slippery slope here, just a sheer drop- off into an illegal abyss of unilateral personal disarmament of all citizens. Or were you not addressing the anti- gun agenda?

Brian

Meaningless analogies and I can give trite answers to each of them. You did not answer my question.

Private sales on the internet. For example, the Las Vegas gunman was able to illegally purchase armor-piercing bullets and the vendor got nabbed only because his fingerprints were found on the shipment.

If a SS recepient (not just a veteran) had their finances being managed due to a mental impairment then they would get flagged. By pushing veterans as the rallying point, the entire "mentally ill" restriction was rolled back?

Ahh.....the familiar slippery slope argument.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 19, 2018, 08:11:04 am
We do not know, no- one knows as far as I can tell. We do not know what the author(s) of that Amendment meant with certainty.

It is a poorly written set of words to be sure though and requires interpretation and 'perceived implication' to actually try and use or apply it.

Some Constitutional scholars claim that the first part of Amendments like the second one (many are written in such ways as to make them confusing as to scope, intent and so forth) is the explanation for its existence while the second part is the actual intent. Others disagree. Some also take it to be applied literally, such as the interpretation of the word 'arms', while others think it has a limited application. Certainly on some level is IS limited because no private person could own 'any' "arms", such as a biological or nuclear device that could be used as a weapon. A wealthy person could certainly afford to purchase an F 22 Raptor, for example, but it is unlikely that that would actually be allowed to happen. Further, if the aircraft <could> be purchased and posessed by a private person, it certainly could NOT be outfitted with a full weapons compliment, especially if any of those weapons might be nuclear. It is usually stated by the umbrella statement that the Constitution (with its Amendments) is not a suicide pact, which of course makes good sense.

At any rate the Second Amendment of our Constitution is most certainly 'infringed' in many different ways starting with the types of 'arms' we can posess, then moving onto who may NOT posess them (felons, those duly adjudicated mentally incompetent, those dishonorably discharged from any US service, etc.) and so forth. So to take the words literally is impossible first because of how they are written, and secondly because that Amendment has effectively been violated many times, in many ways, since 1934 at least (when the National Firearms Act was passed) if not earlier in some locations (carrying a firearm in NYC, for example, has been illegal for a long time now).

We need an entire branch of our government to try an figure out the answers to these questions virtually continuously, and they cannot come to an easy conclusion, in fact, they are usually split 5 to 4 on ANY answer they issue on this topic (speaking of the Supreme Court here).

Brian


That's a very good point that's often overlooked.


So what is the definition of "militia"

"(in the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service"

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=militia&oq=militia&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=militia&oq=militia&aqs=chrome..69i57&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)



Ok so maybe a good starting point is to remove weapons from anybody who isn't eligible by law for military service.


That's fully in line with the word & spirit of the second amendment isn't it ?

<snip>

Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 23, 2018, 01:39:32 am
How sad.


It appears there was uniformed, trained & armed "good guy" on the school Campus who was outside the building and yet did not intervene.


Could  he have made a difference? Well his boss (the Sheriff) seems to think so.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43164634 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43164634)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 23, 2018, 03:49:34 am
sad

The ultimate measure of a man is not where he stands in moments of comfort and convenience, but where he stands at times of challenge and controversy.
 Martin Luther King, Jr.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 23, 2018, 05:13:15 am
Guess all the goodness drained out of him when he heard the gunfire. Dereliction of duty is the appropriate description here. Early reports are that he had a checkered past in law enforcement. :banghead:
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 23, 2018, 09:58:28 pm
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/02/23/serial-failure-heres-how-government-totally-dropped-the-ball-in-stopping-florid-n2453448

Good summary of the so many failures and warning signs.  Cruz might have just as well walked around with a sign saying "I am a ticking time bomb.  Please stop me."  I have no idea how they got that "confidential" Florida Department of Children and Families investigative summary, but it is horrifying (link is in the article).  And that is just ONE document!  There is no way anyone can deny mental illness in this case.

Had our EXISTING policies and laws been enforced properly, this probably would not have happened at all.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 24, 2018, 06:24:58 am
Does the Broward County Sheriff' Department have a non-engagement policy?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Conrad on February 24, 2018, 07:37:08 am
Does the Broward County Sheriff' Department have a non-engagement policy?

It would appear that they do. Now the story is that when the Coral Springs LEOs arrived at the HS that there were 4 Broward Sheriffs outside the school. 3 'taking positions*' behind their squad cars and one 'taking position*' behind building 12.


* aka cowering.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 24, 2018, 07:42:52 am
Did none of those 'officers' have children? If they do what do those children think of their fathers now?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 24, 2018, 08:59:53 am
It would appear that they do. Now the story is that when the Coral Springs LEOs arrived at the HS that there were 4 Broward Sheriffs outside the school. 3 'taking positions*' behind their squad cars and one 'taking position*' behind building 12.


* aka cowering.

What? Four good guys could not stop one bad guy with a gun. Now they want teachers to pack heat. Recipe for disaster.
On the bright side, academic achievement scores might go up with students being terrified of their teachers and paying attention to what is being taught.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: turbojoe78 on February 24, 2018, 09:54:10 am
What? Four good guys could not stop one bad guy with a gun. Now they want teachers to pack heat. Recipe for disaster.
On the bright side, academic achievement scores might go up with students being terrified of their teachers and paying attention to what is being taught.

sanmo, I don't think anyone is saying they WANT teachers to carry guns, there saying if there were teachers who want to get trained and carry guns then it might make our children safer.

And whether it's teachers, administrators or janitors, it makes more sense to have them conceal carry.  The kids in class wouldn't even know who was carrying and who wasn't so they wouldn't be "terrified".  Do you walk around terrified everywhere you go?  Next time your out in public, try to guess who is carrying a gun, and who isn't.

And remember ... were out there ... everywhere ... with our guns ... and we will protect you too.   8)

Everyone has there place in society ... the sheep ... the wolves ... and yes ... the sheepdogs ... always on watch, protecting the flock.   Baaa! Baaa!
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 24, 2018, 10:32:52 am
What? Four good guys could not stop one bad guy with a gun. Now they want teachers to pack heat. Recipe for disaster.
On the bright side, academic achievement scores might go up with students being terrified of their teachers and paying attention to what is being taught.
Not really sure about their 'good guy'status.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: VirginiaJim on February 24, 2018, 10:39:03 am
Yeah, but it could be that's what they were told or a policy.   We don't know that yet.   But I do know if I knew children we're being harmed I wouldn't be cowering behind vehicles.  I'd be in there trying to save them regardless of the cost.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 24, 2018, 11:35:04 am
What? Four good guys could not stop one bad guy with a gun.

Um, no, not if they cower outside.  What a ridiculous statement.

Quote
Now they want teachers to pack heat. Recipe for disaster.

No it isn't, not if the person is trained and licensed.  The whole point is that there might already be someone on or IN the scene and ready and with something direct to lose.  And nobody is saying teachers SHOULD [must]  be armed, just that they (and other staff) should have that option on the table (concealed, of course).

Quote
On the bright side, academic achievement scores might go up with students being terrified of their teachers and paying attention to what is being taught.

Nah, they will still spend every waking moment staring at their phones.  And students would have no business knowing who is or isn't armed.  Just knowing there MIGHT be armed, good citizens around (like in most places) would be a major deterrent to choosing lethal activity. 
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Conrad on February 25, 2018, 06:59:11 am
Yeah, but it could be that's what they were told or a policy.   We don't know that yet.   But I do know if I knew children we're being harmed I wouldn't be cowering behind vehicles.  I'd be in there trying to save them regardless of the cost.

Since the first LEO, who was cowering behind the building, was immediately suspended, I'm guessing that his actions violated policy.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 25, 2018, 07:14:45 am
sanmo, I don't think anyone is saying they WANT teachers to carry guns, there saying if there were teachers who want to get trained and carry guns then it might make our children safer.

This sounds good in theory, but operationally so many things can go wrong. I really hope that whatever they come up with is effective,

Quote
And whether it's teachers, administrators or janitors, it makes more sense to have them conceal carry.  The kids in class wouldn't even know who was carrying and who wasn't so they wouldn't be "terrified".  Do you walk around terrified everywhere you go?  Next time your out in public, try to guess who is carrying a gun, and who isn't.

How many school teachers, administrators or janitors do you know wear concealing jackets or vests on the daily job? I suppose strapping to the leg is an option though it rules out a large caliber needed to be effective against a maniac with an AR-15. Keeping it in a bag or lockbox has associated problems of unauthorized access.

Quote
And remember ... were out there ... everywhere ... with our guns ... and we will protect you too.   8)

Thanks for the offer of protection, but I'd much prefer if both you and the bad guy left your weapons at home. Getting near a shootout between you warriors just doubles my risk of getting hurt by the crossfire.  :)


Quote
Everyone has there place in society ... the sheep ... the wolves ... and yes ... the sheepdogs ... always on watch, protecting the flock.   Baaa! Baaa!

True, and sometimes the sheepdogs turn out to be just Yorkies or Bichon as in the Parkland tragedy. All bark and no bite.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 25, 2018, 08:57:33 am
This sounds good in theory, but operationally so many things can go wrong.

If you believe that there is a huge crisis in [bad on good] gun violence, then you ALREADY believe "so many things can go wrong."

Quote
How many school teachers, administrators or janitors do you know wear concealing jackets or vests on the daily job?  I suppose strapping to the leg is an option

As is pocket carry, and inside-pant carry, and several other methods.

Quote
though it rules out a large caliber needed to be effective against a maniac with an AR-15.

One doesn't need a "large caliber" gun to be effective on someone in such a school attack.  This isn't a sniper situation.  "Scary-looking rifle" doesn't give the shooter some magical ability.

Quote
Thanks for the offer of protection, but I'd much prefer if both you and the bad guy left your weapons at home.

Fallacy.  Your desire to have a good person leave their weapon at home will do absolutely nothing to compel a bad person to do the same.  If we are going to live in a fantasy, I would much prefer there be no more violence in the world.  Let me know when you have a workable plan for that.  Meanwhile, I much prefer to have options to protect myself and those I care about.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 25, 2018, 11:00:37 am
If you believe that there is a huge crisis in [bad on good] gun violence, then you ALREADY believe "so many things can go wrong."

As is pocket carry, and inside-pant carry, and several other methods.

One doesn't need a "large caliber" gun to be effective on someone in such a school attack.  This isn't a sniper situation.  "Scary-looking rifle" doesn't give the shooter some magical ability.

Fallacy.  Your desire to have a good person leave their weapon at home will do absolutely nothing to compel a bad person to do the same.  If we are going to live in a fantasy, I would much prefer there be no more violence in the world.  Let me know when you have a workable plan for that.  Meanwhile, I much prefer to have options to protect myself and those I care about.

Dude, you are getting so sanctimonius in your defense of your weapons collection that you fail to see the subtle humor in "students terrified of gun-toting teachers" or "good guys and bad guys leaving their weapons at home".
Let me say that your (and BDF's) repeated assertion that the AR-15 type gun is just a "scary-looking rifle" reeks of NRA propaganda. You may have already seen this ER radiologist's essay on the lethality of a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine, in the aftermath of the Parkland shooting. I am not a medical doctor so I cannot confirm the accuracy of her pathology report, but have no reason to doubt it either.  https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/553937/?__twitter_impression=true (https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/553937/?__twitter_impression=true)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 25, 2018, 11:36:46 am
I do not think I ever said anything about what an AR- 15 looks like. ?? Perhaps you are starting to confuse me and maxtog? Do we 'all look alike' to you?  ;)

I am certainly not confusing you with Charles Rangle (NY) or John Lewis (GA) or Diane Feinstein (CA) though you seem to share a political party.

And I have, and will continue to defend your right to say whatever you want, and further freely admit your thoughts and opinions are as valid as mine or anyone else's.

Brian (not maxtog)

Dude, you are getting so sanctimonius in your defense of your weapons collection that you fail to see the subtle humor in "students terrified of gun-toting teachers" or "good guys and bad guys leaving their weapons at home".
Let me say that your (and BDF's) repeated assertion that the AR-15 type gun is just a "scary-looking rifle" reeks of NRA propaganda. You may have already seen this ER radiologist's essay on the lethality of a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine, in the aftermath of the Parkland shooting. I am not a medical doctor so I cannot confirm the accuracy of her pathology report, but have no reason to doubt it either.  https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/553937/?__twitter_impression=true (https://www.theatlantic.com/amp/article/553937/?__twitter_impression=true)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 25, 2018, 12:28:45 pm
Dude, you are getting so sanctimonius in your defense of your weapons collection that you fail to see the subtle humor in "students terrified of gun-toting teachers" or "good guys and bad guys leaving their weapons at home".

I don't find any of it humorous, no.  And  tend not to try and make implied statements veiled as jokes so I can then later state that isn't what was meant.  I am not saying that is what you are doing, I don't know.

Quote
Let me say that your (and BDF's) repeated assertion that the AR-15 type gun is just a "scary-looking rifle" reeks of NRA propaganda.

What I said is that most people have an irrational judgement about the AR-15 because of the way it looks... because it looks "scary" (and it does look scary) and that is true.   There are plenty of other non-military rifles that are just as or even more dangerous than the AR-15, but aren't being targeted (pun intended) because they lack the "look" of an intimidating rifle.  A typical hunting rifle is every bit as dangerous, but it doesn't have the look.

Further, I am not really even a fan of the NRA.  I believe in and support many of their causes, but I am certainly no mouthpiece for them.

Quote
You may have already seen this ER radiologist's essay on the lethality of a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine

Yes, in fact, I do a lot of research and saw it before your posting.  I don't think it is particularly enlightening or revealing at all.  We all know that rifles are typically much more powerful and deadly than hand guns.  But they are also extremely difficult to conceal and carry and are rarely used in bad-on-good attacks.

Your statement was that you could not defend effectively against an AR-15 with a low caliber gun.  What I said was that was incorrect.  I didn't say or imply a low-caliber handgun was as effective or as deadly as an AR-15.  However, if a mad AR15 gunman burst into a building and started shooting people at close range (as was done in this school shooting), having even a few people shoot at him with ANY caliber weapon could end it quickly.

Would it surprise you to know I don't even own a rifle, and don't plan to?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 25, 2018, 12:32:52 pm
For many of us this side of the pond the word "Armalite" is synonymous with the Provisional IRA as many AR15s & AR18s were purchased (legally I believe) in the US with funds provided by Irish American Republicans before being smuggled in (illegally) to Northern Ireland on ships such as the QE2.

A little more than scary looking, the AR18 was particularly liked by them for it's stopping power and indeed became known as "The WidowMaker" over here.

Footnote. Am aware that this was not the PIRAs sole source of arms as they got a shedload of them(plush cash) from amongst others the Libyans)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 25, 2018, 02:19:39 pm
If we are going to do down that road, then I will step up and say (type) out loud: the caliber used in the AR-15, 5.56 NATO, is a relatively low power rifle caliber and in fact, far less powerful than many, if not most, pistol calibers. Somehow or other, the standard cartridge used in that rifle has been 'tagged' as some type of 'very powerful' cartridge and it is not, not even close. Not legal to hunt deer with in many states in the US, and absolutely lacking stopping and 'lethality' as compared with other, commonly used pistol and rifle cartridges.

For example, the classic 30-06 Springfield that everybody, starting with great- granddad used and continues to use for hunting, target shooting and typical sporting uses is far, far larger and more powerful than the 5.56 NATO. So is the 7.62 NATO cartridge, which is the same diameter and only very slightly behind the 30-06 in power, still far more powerful than the AR-15 caliber.

5.56 NATO is the standard service rifle caliber currently in use by the US armed forces (standard issue, not sniper rifles, etc.). It is by far the smallest and least powerful service rifle caliber to have been used by the US in a century and most likely, ever in the country's history. In fact, part of the reason it was adopted was its low recoil, the by- product of a low powered cartridge. The standard service cartridge from 1906 through 1957 was the already mentioned 30-06 Springfield, used in several bolt action rifles as well as the M1 Garand, still in wide spread use and in fact a standard target rifle and caliber at many of the largest shooting events in the US. From ~1957 to the mid- 1960's the US armed service standard issue rifle caliber was the 7.62 NATO or .308 Winchester, and again it was virtually as powerful as the previous 30-06. Finally, when the AR-15 was adopted, it was adopted in caliber 5.56 NATO, or the equivalent .223 Remington (virtually interchangeable).

So the oft- stated 'legend' of this 'horribly powerful caliber' just is not correct.

The above is fact, but this is conjecture on my part: had the Las Vegas shooting been done with a similar but larger rifle chambered in 7.62 NATO, such as the FN-FAL that is the most widely used service arm in the 'free world' (often called 'the right hand of the Free World'), there would have been more fatalities due to both the increased lethality of the larger (and still standard sporting size) in initial wounds but almost certainly due to greatly increased power of the ricochets off the ground behind the initial victims (a human is almost NEVER NEARLY enough to stop a 7.62 NATO).

We can argue endlessly about many of these issues but the mechanical facts remain facts. The AR-15 is NOT chambered for a 'very powerful' or 'more powerful' caliber than is otherwise typically used in hunting, target shooting and general civilian use but in fact is LESS powerful than MOST calibers typically used by the civilian shooting public.

OK, end of rant.  ::)

Brian


<snip>

Yes, in fact, I do a lot of research and saw it before your posting.  I don't think it is particularly enlightening or revealing at all.  We all know that rifles are typically much more powerful and deadly than hand guns.  But they are also extremely difficult to conceal and carry and are rarely used in bad-on-good attacks.

Your statement was that you could not defend effectively against an AR-15 with a low caliber gun.  What I said was that was incorrect.  I didn't say or imply a low-caliber handgun was as effective or as deadly as an AR-15.  However, if a mad AR15 gunman burst into a building and started shooting people at close range (as was done in this school shooting), having even a few people shoot at him with ANY caliber weapon could end it quickly.

Would it surprise you to know I don't even own a rifle, and don't plan to?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 25, 2018, 02:41:33 pm
For many of us this side of the pond the word "Armalite" is synonymous with the Provisional IRA as many AR15s & AR18s were purchased (legally I believe) in the US with funds provided by Irish American Republicans before being smuggled in (illegally) to Northern Ireland on ships such as the QE2.

A little more than scary looking, the AR18 was particularly liked by them for it's stopping power and indeed became known as "The WidowMaker" over here.

Footnote. Am aware that this was not the PIRAs sole source of arms as they got a shedload of them(plush cash) from amongst others the Libyans)
Are you sure some of the AR18s used during The Troubles didn't come from Sterling in the your own country?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 25, 2018, 03:47:35 pm
Are you sure some of the AR18s used during The Troubles didn't come from Sterling in the your own country?

Some of them may have been made by Sterling originally, equally some of them may originally have come from Howa in Japan as well as out of the Armalite factory in the US.

Where they were made isn't quite the same thing as where they were bought. :)








Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 25, 2018, 04:18:28 pm
It seems you may be deflecting here a bit. You can say with confidence that none of the British built weapons were sold illegally and floated across the waters? That they all came from the former Colonies or Libya?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 25, 2018, 04:35:49 pm
I do not think I ever said anything about what an AR- 15 looks like. ??

You are clearly more concerned with what you call assault weapons than handguns, and this unfortunately is an all- too common belief because the assault weapon "looks evil". But statistically, magazine fed auto-loading rifles are virtually insignificant in the instances of undesirable uses of firearms; it is the handgun that causes almost all the firearms related deaths and gunshot wounds in the US. In fact, guess which single model of firearm has the lowest fatality rate in the US of A...... yep, the AR-15 series of rifles.
Brian (masquerading as a reasoning individual for over half- a- century now)

Quote
Perhaps you are starting to confuse me and maxtog? Do we 'all look alike' to you?  ;)

I am certainly not confusing you with Charles Rangle (NY) or John Lewis (GA) or Diane Feinstein (CA) though you seem to share a political party.

And there it is. The racism that I knew would raise it's ugly head sometime. With some sexism thrown in for cover. Well done.....

Quote
And I have, and will continue to defend your right to say whatever you want, and further freely admit your thoughts and opinions are as valid as mine or anyone else's.

Brian (not maxtog)

Without a diversity of opinion this forum would be a boring echo chamber, especially during the non-riding months.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 25, 2018, 04:53:29 pm

What I said is that most people have an irrational judgement about the AR-15 because of the way it looks... because it looks "scary" (and it does look scary) and that is true.   There are plenty of other non-military rifles that are just as or even more dangerous than the AR-15, but aren't being targeted (pun intended) because they lack the "look" of an intimidating rifle.  A typical hunting rifle is every bit as dangerous, but it doesn't have the look.


I get that the AR-15 is getting a lot of notoriety because it is being used in these high-profile mass casualties. It may very well be underpowered compared to other hunting rifles, but we are not talking about sniper marksmanship here. The targets are in relatively close quarters and you are conveniently ignoring the 50 - 60 round high capacity magazines that wreak havoc in a cluster of panicked individuals. The AR-15 is no more "scary looking" than any of the gobs of semi-automatics at Cabelas or Dicks. If anything the price makes it the saturday night special of semi-automatics.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: lather on February 25, 2018, 04:55:44 pm
A firearm does not have to be powerful to be lethal. I have read some medical accounts to the effect that the 5.56 inflicts massive damage on human tissue realtive to its size. And this reminds me that an AR-15 fan friend of mind once told me that the round is so deadly because it tumbles in flight or on impact. Any truth to that?


If we are going to do down that road, then I will step up and say (type) out loud: the caliber used in the AR-15, 5.56 NATO, is a relatively low power rifle caliber and in fact, far less powerful than many, if not most, pistol calibers. Somehow or other, the standard cartridge used in that rifle has been 'tagged' as some type of 'very powerful' cartridge and it is not, not even close. Not legal to hunt deer with in many states in the US, and absolutely lacking stopping and 'lethality' as compared with other, commonly used pistol and rifle cartridges.

For example, the classic 30-06 Springfield that everybody, starting with great- granddad used and continues to use for hunting, target shooting and typical sporting uses is far, far larger and more powerful than the 5.56 NATO. So is the 7.62 NATO cartridge, which is the same diameter and only very slightly behind the 30-06 in power, still far more powerful than the AR-15 caliber.

5.56 NATO is the standard service rifle caliber currently in use by the US armed forces (standard issue, not sniper rifles, etc.). It is by far the smallest and least powerful service rifle caliber to have been used by the US in a century and most likely, ever in the country's history. In fact, part of the reason it was adopted was its low recoil, the by- product of a low powered cartridge. The standard service cartridge from 1906 through 1957 was the already mentioned 30-06 Springfield, used in several bolt action rifles as well as the M1 Garand, still in wide spread use and in fact a standard target rifle and caliber at many of the largest shooting events in the US. From ~1957 to the mid- 1960's the US armed service standard issue rifle caliber was the 7.62 NATO or .308 Winchester, and again it was virtually as powerful as the previous 30-06. Finally, when the AR-15 was adopted, it was adopted in caliber 5.56 NATO, or the equivalent .223 Remington (virtually interchangeable).

So the oft- stated 'legend' of this 'horribly powerful caliber' just is not correct.

The above is fact, but this is conjecture on my part: had the Las Vegas shooting been done with a similar but larger rifle chambered in 7.62 NATO, such as the FN-FAL that is the most widely used service arm in the 'free world' (often called 'the right hand of the Free World'), there would have been more fatalities due to both the increased lethality of the larger (and still standard sporting size) in initial wounds but almost certainly due to greatly increased power of the ricochets off the ground behind the initial victims (a human is almost NEVER NEARLY enough to stop a 7.62 NATO).

We can argue endlessly about many of these issues but the mechanical facts remain facts. The AR-15 is NOT chambered for a 'very powerful' or 'more powerful' caliber than is otherwise typically used in hunting, target shooting and general civilian use but in fact is LESS powerful than MOST calibers typically used by the civilian shooting public.

OK, end of rant.  ::)

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 25, 2018, 05:35:27 pm
I never said an AR-15 was or was not lethal but as you brought it up, it most certainly is often lethal to small to medium sized, thin skinned mammals. My point was and is that the AR-15 is NOT chambered in a very powerful, particularly lethal cartridge, nor even one near the 'middle of the pack' of commonly used firearm calibers for normal, US hunting and target shooting. A typical LEO's .40 S&W, loaded with hollow points and used for a solid torso hit would would be, in my opinion and experience, far more destructive than . 5.56 NATO projectile in the identical place on the identical target, at least at close range (under 100 yards).

No. Another myth perpetuated by.... I have no idea who we have to thank for that one. No firearm purposefully uses a single projectile, long gun or short gun, that tumbles, nor have they ever done so as it would be a particularly ineffective thing to do.

If the bullet 'tumbled' in flight, it would do what is called 'key-holing' in targets (where the perforation is not round but elongated from the projectile passing through on its side.... leaving a penetration that looks like a 'keyhole'). Further, the only way a projectile of any kind can travel appreciable distances, with any accuracy, is if it travel along its axis, any appreciable 'wobble' is hugely detrimental, actual tumbling would effectively ruin the projectile's flight as well as use the projectile's kinetic energy at a fantastic rate, rendering the projectile far less effective in relatively short distances (less than 100 yards and it gets much worse as the distance increases). Please note that I did not say a tumbling projectile was not dangerous, merely that it is never, ever done with conical projectiles from long guns or short guns on purpose.

In fact, the only firearms I have ever seen do this are handguns in large diameter calibers, usually using lead bullets and 'leading' the barrel so badly that the rifling can no longer be seen. By the time tumbling actually occurs, accuracy is so poor that is it often necessary to move to a very short distance (under 10 yards) to the target to even be able to hit something the size of a target. And once that is done, the 'key-holing' obvious (the hole in the target is of a projectile sideways or close to that shape).

High velocity bullets can cause hydrostatic shock but again the AR-15's cartridge is well down in the range where that becomes important regarding lethality. The same .22 caliber projectiles driven from a .220 Swift (obsolescent now), 22-250 or a host of other, readily available and often used sporting calibers will easily add 30% to the projectile's velocity and begin to become effective through sheer velocity rather than velocity coupled with projectile weight and / or bullet wound channel size (caused by expanding bullets, which again, the AR-15 usually does not use although it certainly can). And again, a .30 caliber bullet traveling <nearly> as fast as a .22 caliber bullet will simply do more tissue and especially hard material (bone, cartilage) damage than the smaller bullet as well as penetrate far more.

If you want to read some interesting, in- depth accounts of calibers and their various wounding abilities, read the US gov't reports generated in the 1930's before the 30-06 was re- adopted for use in the then- new M1 Garand. A smaller, faster round was tried with mixed results and in the end rejected (a .276 diameter if memory serves). The reports are truly grisly but what else would one expect when studying gunshot wounds and trying to choose the most effective (read: the most tissue damage w/in reasonable restrictions, meaning that the average person can become proficient with that size caliber) caliber / velocity / projectile type and shape.

All the way back to the topic at hand: I am merely trying to bring some facts to a topic often skewed in one direction or the other by the various factions. All that I have said is easily verified by reputable sources, perhaps most notable the ordnance boards of the various US armed services over the years.

Brian

A firearm does not have to be powerful to be lethal. I have read some medical accounts to the effect that the 5.56 inflicts massive damage on human tissue realtive to its size. And this reminds me that an AR-15 fan friend of mind once told me that the round is so deadly because it tumbles in flight or on impact. Any truth to that?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: lather on February 25, 2018, 05:59:18 pm
Thanks for the reply Brian. Many years ago I researched  ballistics when I was interested in hunting and was impressed with the  Winchester .270 but decided my Winchester 94 was the best choice for the dense jungles of the Bayou State. But I lost interest in hunting... and fishing and watersking and autocross as my interest in motorcycling increased.  It's easier to be good at just one thing. :D
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 25, 2018, 06:27:20 pm
It may very well be underpowered compared to other hunting rifles, but we are not talking about sniper marksmanship here. The targets are in relatively close quarters and you are conveniently ignoring the 50 - 60 round high capacity magazines that wreak havoc in a cluster of panicked individuals.

I am not ignoring anything, although I don't remember being asked to address that.  What is the question?  A full-sized 9mm handgun typically holds 17 rounds but one can often use a much larger magazine in that, too (although it would look strange and certainly be inconvenient because it sticks way out).  There is plenty of info on the 'net showing how a trained person can quickly and easily change magazines (hint, about 1 to 2 seconds).  50/17 = 3.  1 in the gun already, so that means 2 to 4 seconds of total downtime.  Not crippling.

Sure, a larger magazine is more convenient, and potentially more situationally deadly, but it is probably not a major factor with a well-prepared, crazy gunner on a rampage.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 25, 2018, 11:14:30 pm
It seems you may be deflecting here a bit. You can say with confidence that none of the British built weapons were sold illegally and floated across the waters? That they all came from the former Colonies or Libya?

I'm sure that there have been occasions where British built firearms have been sold illegally and smuggled into/out of various countries
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Rick Hall on February 26, 2018, 12:46:41 am
I'm sure that there have been occasions where British built firearms have been sold illegally and smuggled into/out of various countries

 :yikes: :yikes:

Entertain the ignorant, what manufacturer? I know of at least one in Belgium, but have no clue about manufacturers in GB. Sorry.

Rick
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 26, 2018, 01:16:26 am
:yikes: :yikes:

Entertain the ignorant, what manufacturer? I know of at least one in Belgium, but have no clue about manufacturers in GB. Sorry.

Rick


Well lets see , there was the already mentioned Sterling , although they went bust in 98. Mind you we were back in the 1970's  for this sub thread ;)

Webley & Scott spring to mind as do BSA (although I think theyve probably long folded)

Technically BAE are firearms manufacturers as well then of course you have the various shotgun makers such as Purdey etc.


Found this list online


http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=449261&page=1 (http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=449261&page=1)



Or slightly broader


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_armament_manufacturers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_modern_armament_manufacturers)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Rick Hall on February 26, 2018, 01:36:29 am

Technically BAE are firearms manufacturers as well then of course you have the various shotgun makers such as Purdey etc.


I drooled for a Purdey side by side in my younger years. Mostly because I recreated an obsolete extractor for a friend. Fine firearms, beautiful examples of shooting sport artwork.

Rick
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Rhino on February 26, 2018, 06:05:29 am
Can't forget Holland and Holland. Arn't they the Roles Royce of firearms and made in London? I've seen some H&H guns but have never touched one.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 26, 2018, 07:05:45 am
OFFTOPIC:

All / any of the English gun-makers who made double rifles around the turn of the century produced simply outstanding examples of the firearm maker's arts: Rigby, Holland and Holland, Purdy, Jeffery, and maybe a couple of others. Their products were simply the best they could be made with no thought to limits such as expense, manufacturing time, etc. They were, at least the large caliber (.400 and larger, 'dangerous game' calibers) almost always custom fitted to the purchaser, and included all the accouterments as well as a beautiful leather, wood and metal case.

They were almost all double rifles, exactly like a double- barreled shotgun but a true rifle, and often in impressively large sizes. Meant for the most dangerous game on the planet, and to be used and depended on where there were no spare parts, gunsmiths or support of any kind, they were as rugged as a brick in addition to being outstanding examples of precision and beauty. Most Americans do not even recognize them and thing they are a 'fat' double- barreled shotgun because they were almost never used in the US, where we always tended to prefer repeating firearms but if anyone ever gets a chance to see one, by all means do take the time to examine and enjoy it for a few moments.

BTW: because these are true rifles, they are actually very accurate. But the two bores do not share an axis and so are very slightly angled toward each other at the muzzle so the points of impact of each barrel crosses at a specified distance (and of course with a specified projectile, loading, etc.). The men who aligned these firearms were called regulators, and they would spend days fitting each rifle and shooting it from a bench to properly align the sights and both barrels. In the heavier calibers, this was truly punishing work. I read a story about one gentleman who suffered all sorts of physical damage from a career of doing this very thing on some of the most powerful rifles in the world. The size and power of these rifles was truly impressive; they were usually weighted with lead to make them 'sort of' manageable to shoot, and required 'gun bearers' to tote them around all day (multiple people, taking turns).

end OFFTOPIC:

Brian

Can't forget Holland and Holland. Arn't they the Roles Royce of firearms and made in London? I've seen some H&H guns but have never touched one.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 26, 2018, 11:10:40 am
Found this today, 26 Feb. 2018.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/students-resolute-enter-school-shooting-045640708.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/students-resolute-enter-school-shooting-045640708.html)

Fifth paragraph down is the following:

"She's very lucky, very, very lucky" said Igor Nichiporenko, M.D., medical director of trauma services at Broward Health North, adding that the large caliber bullets "penetrated through her chest and abdomen."

This is exactly the type of incorrect statement, made by a learned person, a physician, that leads to so much general misunderstanding and outright errors that 'everyone knows' to be the truth. No one nor any authoritative source I am aware of or can find considers a .223 or 5.56 NATO to be a 'large caliber' in any way, shape or fashion.

Please understand I am not in any way trying to minimize this victim's injuries nor in any way shrugging off her extremely, apparently life- threatening injuries from multiple gunshots. I am just pointing out how falsehoods get mixed in with facts and are presented as 'evidence' in these types of contentious situations (gun control, nothing to do with this specific tragedy). And I am not trying to belittle the physician either, he simply made a mistake as we all do. But when these types of mistakes slide over into 'facts', it is unfortunate and leads to incorrect conclusions on the parts of many on- lookers.

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 26, 2018, 02:03:44 pm
So I found this picture of common bullet sizes on the interwebs. (https://www.pewpewtactical.com/bullet-sizes-calibers-and-types/)

There are 18 bullets shown so working on the small , medium & large principle that very neatly gives us  6 of each size calibre


(http://www.sharetheexperience.co.uk/Images/bullet.jpg)

Found this today, 26 Feb. 2018.

[url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/students-resolute-enter-school-shooting-045640708.html[/url] ([url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/students-resolute-enter-school-shooting-045640708.html[/url])

Fifth paragraph down is the following:

"She's very lucky, very, very lucky" said Igor Nichiporenko, M.D., medical director of trauma services at Broward Health North, adding that the large caliber bullets "penetrated through her chest and abdomen."

This is exactly the type of incorrect statement, made by a learned person, a physician, that leads to so much general misunderstanding and outright errors that 'everyone knows' to be the truth. No one nor any authoritative source I am aware of or can find considers a .223 or 5.56 NATO to be a 'large caliber' in any way, shape or fashion.

Please understand I am not in any way trying to minimize this victim's injuries nor in any way shrugging off her extremely, apparently life- threatening injuries from multiple gunshots. I am just pointing out how falsehoods get mixed in with facts and are presented as 'evidence' in these types of contentious situations (gun control, nothing to do with this specific tragedy). And I am not trying to belittle the physician either, he simply made a mistake as we all do. But when these types of mistakes slide over into 'facts', it is unfortunate and leads to incorrect conclusions on the parts of many on- lookers.

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Conniesaki on February 26, 2018, 02:07:17 pm
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2018/02/23/serial-failure-heres-how-government-totally-dropped-the-ball-in-stopping-florid-n2453448

Good summary of the so many failures and warning signs.  Cruz might have just as well walked around with a sign saying "I am a ticking time bomb.  Please stop me."

...

... but if he did, people probably would have either chuckled or thought he was just some odd feller trying to get attention, and after the first few times of seeing him wear it people would've gotten used to and thought not much of it.

It sure seems like there's no solution to trying to predict and stop this kind of crime before damage is done.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 26, 2018, 02:28:01 pm
There are several errors in that placement, starting with a .22 LR being more 'powerful' than a .380, a 9mm being more powerful than a .40 S&W, a 5.56 NATO being more powerful than a 7.62 X 39 (standard caliber of AK-47, SKS and other similar firearms), the 5.56 NATO also being more powerful than the .300 Blackout, the 7.62 X 54R being more powerful than the 7.62 NATO and the 12 ga. being more powerful than the .50 BMG and very possibly, the 30-06 Springfield.

I would not use that particular chart for firearm cartridge instruction or proof myself.  ;)

But back to rifle calibers, I would claim that the 5.56 NATO is the least powerful rifle cartridge (primarily rifle, some knock- off lever actions use .357 magnum though it absolutely IS a pistol caliber) in that chart.

But before we argue, we need to decide on what defines 'power' as it applies to cartridges anyway. We can use muzzle energy, or what is commonly accepted by the hunting community as acceptable 'power' for various game, etc. But again, by either of those two standards, the 5.56 NATO will fall well behind both .30 caliber cartridges to its left in that chart.

Brian

So I found this picture of common bullet sizes on the interwebs. ([url]https://www.pewpewtactical.com/bullet-sizes-calibers-and-types/[/url])

There are 18 bullets shown so working on the small , medium & large principle that very neatly gives us  6 of each size calibre


([url]http://www.sharetheexperience.co.uk/Images/bullet.jpg[/url])
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 26, 2018, 04:22:59 pm
my tongue may have been slightly in my cheek.

On the other hand there are lies, damned lies & statistics ;)

All depend s on how you define "large"


Is it physical size or based on power?

It's the same with cycles , a small bike may be more powerful than a large bike, depends whether you're measuring it on physical size, capacity, horespower, torque


There are several errors in that placement, starting with a .22 LR being more 'powerful' than a .380, a 9mm being more powerful than a .40 S&W, a 5.56 NATO being more powerful than a 7.62 X 39 (standard caliber of AK-47, SKS and other similar firearms), the 5.56 NATO also being more powerful than the .300 Blackout, the 7.62 X 54R being more powerful than the 7.62 NATO and the 12 ga. being more powerful than the .50 BMG and very possibly, the 30-06 Springfield.

I would not use that particular chart for firearm cartridge instruction or proof myself.  ;)

But back to rifle calibers, I would claim that the 5.56 NATO is the least powerful rifle cartridge (primarily rifle, some knock- off lever actions use .357 magnum though it absolutely IS a pistol caliber) in that chart.

But before we argue, we need to decide on what defines 'power' as it applies to cartridges anyway. We can use muzzle energy, or what is commonly accepted by the hunting community as acceptable 'power' for various game, etc. But again, by either of those two standards, the 5.56 NATO will fall well behind both .30 caliber cartridges to its left in that chart.

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 26, 2018, 04:26:37 pm
I would not use that particular chart for firearm cartridge instruction or proof myself.  ;)

Me neither.  They also left off all the other small calibers, [except the 22LR which is misplaced- the 380 is MASSIVELY more powerful than a .22LR- 3 times the weight and double the energy] .32, .22 short, .22 magnum, .25, I am sure I am missing some in there.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 26, 2018, 06:15:57 pm
I am not ignoring anything, although I don't remember being asked to address that.  What is the question?  A full-sized 9mm handgun typically holds 17 rounds but one can often use a much larger magazine in that, too (although it would look strange and certainly be inconvenient because it sticks way out).  There is plenty of info on the 'net showing how a trained person can quickly and easily change magazines (hint, about 1 to 2 seconds).  50/17 = 3.  1 in the gun already, so that means 2 to 4 seconds of total downtime.  Not crippling.

Sure, a larger magazine is more convenient, and potentially more situationally deadly, but it is probably not a major factor with a well-prepared, crazy gunner on a rampage.

Just to be clear, this near equivalency of a 9mm handgun with a 17 round magazine and a couple of extra magazines to a semi-automatic rifle with a 50 round magazine can be achieved by a 19 y.o. punk with an addled mind and probably shitting his pants during the mayhem? We are not talking about a Navy SEAL here, right?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 26, 2018, 06:19:00 pm
For many of us this side of the pond the word "Armalite" is synonymous with the Provisional IRA as many AR15s & AR18s were purchased (legally I believe) in the US with funds provided by Irish American Republicans before being smuggled in (illegally) to Northern Ireland on ships such as the QE2.

A little more than scary looking, the AR18 was particularly liked by them for it's stopping power and indeed became known as "The WidowMaker" over here.

Footnote. Am aware that this was not the PIRAs sole source of arms as they got a shedload of them(plush cash) from amongst others the Libyans)

So how did they control the IRA problem? Just shut off the financing spigot from American sympathizers?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: zrx mitch on February 26, 2018, 06:21:48 pm
Just to be clear, this near equivalency of a 9mm handgun with a 17 round magazine and a couple of extra magazines to a semi-automatic rifle with a 50 round magazine can be achieved by a 19 y.o. punk with an addled mind and probably shitting his pants during the mayhem? We are not talking about a Navy SEAL here, right?

Pull the trigger = bang. 50 times to fire 50 rounds, does it matter if it the 9mm with 3 magazines or the 50 round magazine in the other gun? One will not fire any faster than the other.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 26, 2018, 06:45:01 pm
Just to be clear, this near equivalency of a 9mm handgun with a 17 round magazine and a couple of extra magazines to a semi-automatic rifle with a 50 round magazine can be achieved by a 19 y.o. punk with an addled mind and probably shitting his pants during the mayhem?

Well, I can't speak to the actual 19 year old psycho's ability, but they are both semi-automatic, will both fire at the same rate, and used with indoor distances, a 9mm with defense ammo is more than sufficient to create similar devastation.  It is also lighter, and much easier to conceal than a rifle.

Quote
We are not talking about a Navy SEAL here, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJhXpukUV_Y (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJhXpukUV_Y)  ( 0.51 seconds)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boc7SNTFz04 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boc7SNTFz04)  (a little more realistic)

It isn't difficult to change a mag: push the button and it falls out, slap in the new one, and pull/release the slide to chamber the next round.  Of course, the more practice the better, but after a few dozen times, I am guessing most people could manage 2 to 3 seconds, no problem.   Of course, having a larger mag capacity is better, but it is not a huge factor.

Oh, here is a 32 round mag for an M&P 9mm handgun, only $25:
https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/promag-smith-and-wesson-m-and-p-9-magazine-9mm-luger-32-rounds-zytel-floorplate-blued-steel-smi-a14-708279011641.do (https://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/promag-smith-and-wesson-m-and-p-9-magazine-9mm-luger-32-rounds-zytel-floorplate-blued-steel-smi-a14-708279011641.do)  (crazy long)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 26, 2018, 06:45:29 pm
So how did they control the IRA problem? Just shut off the financing spigot from American sympathizers?

Switched to 401Ks.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 26, 2018, 07:55:30 pm
For whatever it is worth, you folks do know you are being trolled with '50, 60' round magazines, right?

 ;) ::)

Brian


Pull the trigger = bang. 50 times to fire 50 rounds, does it matter if it the 9mm with 3 magazines or the 50 round magazine in the other gun? One will not fire any faster than the other.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 26, 2018, 09:58:11 pm
For whatever it is worth, you folks do know you are being trolled with '50, 60' round magazines, right?

 ;) ::)

The AR-15 is issued with a 5, 10, 15, 20, or 30 round magazine.  To my knowledge, 30 is the largest legally sold or can be posessed magazine ANYWHERE in the USA.  If you live in the ridiculous states of CA, NY, MD, MA, and CT a few others, it is 10.  NJ and CO, it is 15.

So, yeah, 'sup with this "50-60 round magazine" stuff, Sanmo??
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 26, 2018, 10:27:43 pm
Wanders off with his Bren LMG ;)

For whatever it is worth, you folks do know you are being trolled with '50, 60' round magazines, right?

 ;) ::)

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 26, 2018, 10:40:45 pm
The AR-15 is issued with a 5, 10, 15, 20, or 30 round magazine.  To my knowledge, 30 is the largest legally sold or can be posessed magazine ANYWHERE in the USA.  If you live in the ridiculous states of CA, NY, MD, MA, and CT a few others, it is 10.  NJ and CO, it is 15.

So, yeah, 'sup with this "50-60 round magazine" stuff, Sanmo??

That was enlightening.

you're both sort of right from what I can see reading/researching various links

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=maximum+magazine+capacity+usa&oq=maximum+magazine+capacity+usa&aqs=chrome..69i57.11146j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=maximum+magazine+capacity+usa&oq=maximum+magazine+capacity+usa&aqs=chrome..69i57.11146j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8)

It appears (this is my summary )  that there was a Federal Law banning high capacity magazines , generally taken as 10+ (unless you already owned them before the ban came in in which case it was still legal to own) however that Act had a sunset clause and wasn't renewed.

Some states then passed their own laws however it looks like certainly CA as of late 2017 had their ban blocked by a Federal Judge.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 26, 2018, 10:42:08 pm
So how did they control the IRA problem? Just shut off the financing spigot from American sympathizers?

I refer my esteemed friend to  the footnote of my original quoted post


" Am aware that this was not the PIRAs sole source of arms"
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 27, 2018, 04:09:26 am
maybe he was thinking of one of these...
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: VirginiaJim on February 27, 2018, 04:34:50 am
So how did they control the IRA problem? Just shut off the financing spigot from American sympathizers?

I don't know if that had anything to with it or not but from what I've read, they (IRA) lost the will to fight.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 27, 2018, 04:50:10 am
I don't know if that had anything to with it or not but from what I've read, they (IRA) lost the will to fight.

It could be read that way although the whole Northern Ireland Peace Process was fairly complex although the final nail was a joint ultimatum from both the UK & ROI goverments

You also have to remember there was more than one variation of the IRA (and also the Unionists were in many cases just as bad)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 27, 2018, 05:57:14 am
The AR-15 is issued with a 5, 10, 15, 20, or 30 round magazine.  To my knowledge, 30 is the largest legally sold or can be posessed magazine ANYWHERE in the USA.  If you live in the ridiculous states of CA, NY, MD, MA, and CT a few others, it is 10.  NJ and CO, it is 15.

So, yeah, 'sup with this "50-60 round magazine" stuff, Sanmo??

Regret the Rambo Theatre production of "AR-15 w/high cap magazines vs. 9mm handgun w/17 or 32 rounds" was rudely interrupted by our (racist?) friend. I will try to locate the report which indicated the use 0f 50, 60 and 100 round magaznies for the AR-15.
In the meantime, unless this website is a spoof: https://www.brownells.com/magazines/rifle-magazines/magazines/ar-15-60rd-magazine-223-5-56-prod42026.aspx (https://www.brownells.com/magazines/rifle-magazines/magazines/ar-15-60rd-magazine-223-5-56-prod42026.aspx)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 27, 2018, 06:02:16 am
I refer my esteemed friend to  the footnote of my original quoted post


" Am aware that this was not the PIRAs sole source of arms"

Your esteemed friend was just being lazy and looking for the cliff's notes on how the IRA problem was resolved. :)
From your post, I gather the American financing was important but not critical for sustaining the insurgency.
More reading assignments for your esteemed friend. sigh.................
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 27, 2018, 06:34:30 am
sanmo...which of the following statements do you find most applicable..

A stranger is an enemy until proven to b a friend.

A stranger is a friend until proven to be an enemy.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 27, 2018, 07:03:34 am
Standard issue US military magazines are 30 round. Different AR's are sold with different magazines, often MAGPUL plastic magazines of 20 round capacity.

As you pointed out, magazines are available in many different capacities. But the 30 round is most common, by far.

At this time, there is no US federal limit on magazine size anyone can possess or use.

There are also 'oddball' magazines, often rotary, that can and do have much more capacity. But I do not know of any '50' round magazines and I do not believe there are any '60's either. That said, I am not aware of ANY nefarious uses of any AR with the 'oddball' magazines, all that I have see from photographs have been the ubiquitous 30 round, metal, <probably> standard issue magazines.

Our associate (in this conversation) is simply throwing numbers out in his ignorance, believing accuracy not important so '50' and '60' sounds better as a 'sound- bite' than 20 or 30. My point was that there is absolutely no reason to engage him / her on this topic and start doing math with other firearms magazines nor compare what other firearm magazines may hold, how long it takes to change them and so forth. Put simply, this gentleperson is throwing out snippets he / she has picked up from [often also badly informed] news outlets, and he / she is no longer discussing anything, merely taking potshots (pun intended).

But, as always, it IS a free country and all are of course free to go down any verbal path, the gentleperson specified also of course. Carry on.

I do believe the original topic was the tragic high school shooting in Florida on 14 Feb. 2018

Brian

The AR-15 is issued with a 5, 10, 15, 20, or 30 round magazine.  To my knowledge, 30 is the largest legally sold or can be posessed magazine ANYWHERE in the USA.  If you live in the ridiculous states of CA, NY, MD, MA, and CT a few others, it is 10.  NJ and CO, it is 15.

So, yeah, 'sup with this "50-60 round magazine" stuff, Sanmo??
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 27, 2018, 07:15:16 am
sanmo...which of the following statements do you find most applicable..

A stranger is an enemy until proven to b a friend.

A stranger is a friend until proven to be an enemy.

Statement 2 for sure. You have to be in the first category to advocate concealed carry or open carry of guns. I'm assuming this psych profile is related to the gun debate.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 27, 2018, 07:20:39 am
Standard issue US military magazines are 30 round. Different AR's are sold with different magazines, often MAGPUL plastic magazines of 20 round capacity.

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, 1000x.....
Brian

 :rotflmao:
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 27, 2018, 07:25:06 am
I see the Deputy on duty has broken his silence

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43202800 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43202800)



I do believe the original topic was the tragic high school shooting in Florida on 14 Feb. 2018

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 27, 2018, 07:28:11 am
Some interesting alternatives that I haven't seen discussed here such as "not naming the shooter" and "having 2 doors in every classroom"


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43118865 (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43118865)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 27, 2018, 07:44:18 am
There was one of these instances where the local officials refused to use the name of the perpetrator, with the thought of not providing him any kind of gratification. In the big picture, turning these people into pariahs, socially, which they SHOULD already be but somehow do not seem to quite 'make it' would be one of the most beneficial things for everyone IMO.

The 'big picture' is that if a society finds some particular behavior reprehensible then very little of it will actually happen because no individual wants to be 'that' person. This is apparently common in Japan for example, where person hygiene, grooming and general care (especially not being over weight) is considered unacceptable actually works to prevent people from doing or becoming those things.

But it just does not seem that the people who perpetrate these types of horrible social incidents ever get quite to the level of 'horrible human'. And I have no idea why this is. ??

And it does not seem to be an unusual situation in the western world either.

All of that to say that I think it would be of huge benefit and might actually go a long way to eliminate the root of the problem (if no one wanted to be 'that person' who did that horrible thing) but have no idea of how to get an entire society to behave / think that way.

Brian

Some interesting alternatives that I haven't seen discussed here such as "not naming the shooter" and "having 2 doors in every classroom"


[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43118865[/url] ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43118865[/url])
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 27, 2018, 07:48:34 am
Maybe  policy of not naming for a month then go for a full blown name & shame?


I thought the 2 doors idea had merit.

Ok wouldn't prevent but might help mitigate

There was one of these instances where the local officials refused to use the name of the perpetrator, with the thought of not providing him any kind of gratification. In the big picture, turning these people into pariahs, socially, which they SHOULD already be but somehow do not seem to quite 'make it' would be one of the most beneficial things for everyone IMO.

The 'big picture' is that if a society finds some particular behavior reprehensible then very little of it will actually happen because no individual wants to be 'that' person. This is apparently common in Japan for example, where person hygiene, grooming and general care (especially not being over weight) is considered unacceptable actually works to prevent people from doing or becoming those things.

But it just does not seem that the people who perpetrate these types of horrible social incidents ever get quite to the level of 'horrible human'. And I have no idea why this is. ??

And it does not seem to be an unusual situation in the western world either.

All of that to say that I think it would be of huge benefit and might actually go a long way to eliminate the root of the problem (if no one wanted to be 'that person' who did that horrible thing) but have no idea of how to get an entire society to behave / think that way.

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 27, 2018, 08:13:54 am
Me too, I think both ideas have merit, especially the not naming the perpetrator one. I just do not know how to go about it- free press and all, someone will always print the name and all the other agencies will pick up on that.

And I think it would go a long way toward prevention.

Brian

Maybe  policy of not naming for a month then go for a full blown name & shame?


I thought the 2 doors idea had merit.

Ok wouldn't prevent but might help mitigate
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: turbojoe78 on February 27, 2018, 08:31:01 am
sanmo...which of the following statements do you find most applicable..

A stranger is an enemy until proven to b a friend.

A stranger is a friend until proven to be an enemy.
Statement 2 for sure. You have to be in the first category to advocate concealed carry or open carry of guns. I'm assuming this psych profile is related to the gun debate.

sanmo,  you have absolutely no idea how we who advocate for concealed carry think.  When Gary posted that question to you I wondered how you would answer.  I answered the same as you ... yes, statement #2 is how I look at things.

I bet that most of us on this forum who are CC permit holders, and most in general would answer the same.

You really have no idea at all how we think!
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 27, 2018, 08:33:55 am
 :)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 27, 2018, 09:40:01 am
sanmo,  you have absolutely no idea how we who advocate for concealed carry think.  When Gary posted that question to you I wondered how you would answer.  I answered the same as you ... yes, statement #2 is how I look at things.

I bet that most of us on this forum who are CC permit holders, and most in general would answer the same.

You really have no idea at all how we think!

I'm glad we think alike in that matter and in our choice of bikes. To help educate me, why do you have a CC permit and presumably carry a gun?
(Will do my best to check in frequently so that this conversation is not too disjointed)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Conniesaki on February 27, 2018, 10:10:53 am
Knowing everybody is on edge from the Parkland shootings, what (if anything) should be done with the owner of this?

(http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=23162.0;attach=29349;image)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Rhino on February 27, 2018, 12:58:32 pm
Knowing everybody is on edge from the Parkland shootings, what (if anything) should be done with the owner of this?

([url]http://www.zggtr.org/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=23162.0;attach=29349;image[/url])


Discombobulation at the very least!
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on February 27, 2018, 02:48:04 pm
Standard issue US military magazines are 30 round. Different AR's are sold with different magazines, often MAGPUL plastic magazines of 20 round capacity.

As you pointed out, magazines are available in many different capacities. But the 30 round is most common, by far.

At this time, there is no US federal limit on magazine size anyone can possess or use.

There are also 'oddball' magazines, often rotary, that can and do have much more capacity. But I do not know of any '50' round magazines and I do not believe there are any '60's either. That said, I am not aware of ANY nefarious uses of any AR with the 'oddball' magazines, all that I have see from photographs have been the ubiquitous 30 round, metal, <probably> standard issue magazines.

Our associate (in this conversation) is simply throwing numbers out in his ignorance, believing accuracy not important so '50' and '60' sounds better as a 'sound- bite' than 20 or 30. My point was that there is absolutely no reason to engage him / her on this topic and start doing math with other firearms magazines nor compare what other firearm magazines may hold, how long it takes to change them and so forth. Put simply, this gentleperson is throwing out snippets he / she has picked up from [often also badly informed] news outlets, and he / she is no longer discussing anything, merely taking potshots (pun intended).

But, as always, it IS a free country and all are of course free to go down any verbal path, the gentleperson specified also of course. Carry on.

I do believe the original topic was the tragic high school shooting in Florida on 14 Feb. 2018

Brian


stock up on these....

https://www.classicfirearms.com/ar15-m16-100rd-dual-drum-mag-gen-2-tan (https://www.classicfirearms.com/ar15-m16-100rd-dual-drum-mag-gen-2-tan)

(https://cdn.classicfirearms.com/catalog/product/cache/1/image/580x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/f/d/fde_drum_mag_3_web.jpg)

AR style...
also available for the Mini 14  ;)

temporarily out of stock... wonder why?
https://www.classicfirearms.com/mini-14-100rd-dual-drum-mag-for-all-ruger-mini-14-rifles (https://www.classicfirearms.com/mini-14-100rd-dual-drum-mag-for-all-ruger-mini-14-rifles)

and of course the "old standby"

https://www.classicfirearms.com/75-rd-rear-loading-ak47-drum-mag-korean (https://www.classicfirearms.com/75-rd-rear-loading-ak47-drum-mag-korean)

oh, they have been used in nefarious events.... like Aurora... but the mag jammed....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting)

I guess the folks that survived were lucky that it did...

Charles Whitman comes to mind, when I think about interesting cases...


Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 27, 2018, 03:15:12 pm
I know they are available, but I was pointing out that 1) that is not the norm., either on the range or in a mass shooting and 2) have you ever seen any drum type magazine used in a mass shooting?

My comments were directed toward the idea that the 'usual' or 'standard' or 'often found' magazine for an AR-15 holds "50" or "60" rounds, and I disputed that. The large 'commonly used' magazine for an AR-15 is 30 rounds though 20 and 10 round magazines are quite common, especially for things such as shooting off a bench where that long, 30 round magazine really gets in the way.

I would say the same thing about most Glocks: they certainly are 34 round magazines available for them but 1) it is not common. 2) it would make the 'handgun' too large to be useful as a handgun under any normal, rational circumstances, and 3) again I am not aware of anyone using such optional, clearly ridiculously large magazines for either a mass shooting or the usually gang- bangers tinking away at each other on a Friday night. So to argue about "those 34 round Glocks" or "50 or 60 round AR-15's" seems silly to me.

One can probably buy pants (trousers) in size 60 also but that is NOT the norm. though we (Americans) are certainly doing all we can do to work our way up to that.....

Brian


stock up on these....

https://www.classicfirearms.com/ar15-m16-100rd-dual-drum-mag-gen-2-tan (https://www.classicfirearms.com/ar15-m16-100rd-dual-drum-mag-gen-2-tan)

(https://cdn.classicfirearms.com/catalog/product/cache/1/image/580x/040ec09b1e35df139433887a97daa66f/f/d/fde_drum_mag_3_web.jpg)

AR style...
also available for the Mini 14  ;)

temporarily out of stock... wonder why?
https://www.classicfirearms.com/mini-14-100rd-dual-drum-mag-for-all-ruger-mini-14-rifles (https://www.classicfirearms.com/mini-14-100rd-dual-drum-mag-for-all-ruger-mini-14-rifles)

and of course the "old standby"

https://www.classicfirearms.com/75-rd-rear-loading-ak47-drum-mag-korean (https://www.classicfirearms.com/75-rd-rear-loading-ak47-drum-mag-korean)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 27, 2018, 03:22:37 pm
It was probably more the norm in the roaring twenties ;)


(http://ashvegas.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/tommy-gun.jpg)

I know they are available, but I was pointing out that 1) that is not the norm., either on the range or in a mass shooting and 2) have you ever seen any drum type magazine used in a mass shooting?

Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 27, 2018, 03:28:44 pm
And that 100 round Thompson rotary magazine was not the norm for that sub- machine gun either, the 50 round straight magazine was. The round magazine was specifically rejected for military use because it was found to be unreliable.

Brian

It was probably more the norm in the roaring twenties ;)


([url]http://ashvegas.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/tommy-gun.jpg[/url])
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 27, 2018, 03:31:53 pm
A Columbine shooting survivor and current Colorado state representative is pushing to end gun- free school zones so school personnel can be armed.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/19/colorado-congressman-columbine-survivor-pushes-to-end-gun-free-zones-in-schools.html (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02/19/colorado-congressman-columbine-survivor-pushes-to-end-gun-free-zones-in-schools.html)

I merely present this as an interesting idea. As I said before, I have reservations about arming a lot of people in public schools; I am not against it per se but I am wary that the personnel would have sufficient training and practice to do more harm than good.

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 27, 2018, 03:32:48 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/aurora-gunmans-lethal-arsenal.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/aurora-gunmans-lethal-arsenal.html)

The drum type magazine used in the Aurora, CO theater shooting.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on February 27, 2018, 03:35:36 pm
sorry
I was adding this to my original post,
when you posted

oh, they have been used in nefarious events.... like Aurora... but the mag jammed....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting


But mind you, I am all about others not saying I can't own a gun based on it's color, or manufacture, or it's capacity...

I enjoy my firearms....
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 27, 2018, 03:36:12 pm
Yes, it appears you are correct. But in that same article, it says he used that rifle and drum magazine until it jammed. As I said about the Thompson, they tend to be unreliable, so that rather negates the point that such large but unusual magazines are available.

Brian

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/aurora-gunmans-lethal-arsenal.html[/url] ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/us/aurora-gunmans-lethal-arsenal.html[/url])

The drum type magazine used in the Aurora, CO theater shooting.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 27, 2018, 03:45:08 pm
Yes, that is apparently correct but I was not aware of it until it was posted in this thread just a while ago.

But my point in all of this about magazine capacity is really this: if magazine capacity is limited to, say, 10 rounds, what will be the result? In my view, it will not stop these terrible tragedies and miss use of a firearm but it may reduce the number of victims but does that really gut us anywhere. I mean if the number of victims at Sandy Hook was reduced from 26 to, say, 18, would that be considered a 'win'? Would it console the families of the (say) 18 victims that more were not killed due to reduced magazine capacity? If the thought is continued, let us say that 'large capacity' magazines are actually removed, and throw in AR-15's as well. No more AR-15's and no more 20, 30 or other large magazines exist. But these same people will simply use a different tool to do the same thing, and if future events are reduced in number, is that really our goal? Those now calling for banning AR-15s will then call for the banning of the next firearm used in a mass shooting, exactly as happened in Australia. And while some people certainly want all firearms removed from the public's hands, I do not think it will happen anytime in the near future in the US.

I am trying to think about ways to address the problem in its entirely, not reduce the statistical happenings.

Brian

sorry
I was adding this to my original post,
when you posted

oh, they have been used in nefarious events.... like Aurora... but the mag jammed....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting


But mind you, I am all about others not saying I can't own a gun based on it's color, or manufacture, or it's capacity...

I enjoy my firearms....
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 27, 2018, 03:45:14 pm
Some interesting alternatives that I haven't seen discussed here such as "not naming the shooter" and "having 2 doors in every classroom"


[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43118865[/url] ([url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43118865[/url])


I actually tend to agree with everything on that list, except #6, which of course, would lead to much higher [ban-on-good] gun violence, overall.  (I would also need exact details on #5 before giving it my thumbs up).

There is absolutely no question in my mind that this shooting was a copy-cat.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 27, 2018, 03:45:49 pm
sorry
I was adding this to my original post,
when you posted

oh, they have been used in nefarious events.... like Aurora... but the mag jammed....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora_shooting


But mind you, I am all about others not saying I can't own a gun based on it's color, or manufacture, or it's capacity...

I enjoy my firearms....

Yeah, my post kept getting blown up because the quote was being altered by you! Good thing, because I had some nasty stuff in there which is best left unsaid.  ;D
Now if the AR-15 is in pink do you think it will be less "scary" or  "evil" looking?  8)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 27, 2018, 03:58:21 pm
I'm glad we think alike in that matter and in our choice of bikes. To help educate me, why do you have a CC permit and presumably carry a gun?

Not addressed to me, but I will ask you questions in return and see what you think:

Why do you wear proper riding gear on a bike?
Why do you wear a seatbelt in a car?
Why do you check both ways before crossing the street?
Why do you read the warning labels on a drug before taking it?
Why do you lock your doors on your house?
Why do you buy life insurance?
Why did you buy a fire extinguisher or have smoke detectors?
Why would you be aware of your surroundings while using an ATM?
Why do you perhaps wash your hands after shaking people's hands or maybe shopping?
Why would you keep your wallet in a secure area and keep it with you at all times?
Why would you put a lock code on your phone?
Why would you not write your passwords on a card you carry?
Why would you carry a spare tire or an inflation kit on your vehicle?
Why would you not want to walk around the neighborhood at night without a phone and flashlight?
Why do you look through your peephole before opening your door?

You don't have to assume everyone is evil or bad or dangerous or that every situation will be negative to take sensible precautions.   A threat might be very rare but also extremely dangerous... or it might be more common and yet less dangerous.  Either way, one might decide to take steps to mitigate those.

The overwhelming majority of the concealed carry permit owners *I* know, are the nicest, most trust-worthy, friendly, moral, and good people I have ever known.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 27, 2018, 04:31:49 pm
Not addressed to me, but I will ask you questions in return and see what you think:

Why do you wear proper riding gear on a bike?
Why do you wear a seatbelt in a car?
Why do you check both ways before crossing the street?
Why do you read the warning labels on a drug before taking it?
Why do you lock your doors on your house?
Why do you buy life insurance?
Why did you buy a fire extinguisher or have smoke detectors?
Why would you be aware of your surroundings while using an ATM?
Why do you perhaps wash your hands after shaking people's hands or maybe shopping?
Why would you keep your wallet in a secure area and keep it with you at all times?
Why would you put a lock code on your phone?
Why would you not write your passwords on a card you carry?
Why would you carry a spare tire or an inflation kit on your vehicle?
Why would you not want to walk around the neighborhood at night without a phone and flashlight?
Why do you look through your peephole before opening your door?

You don't have to assume everyone is evil or bad or dangerous or that every situation will be negative to take sensible precautions.   A threat might be very rare but also extremely dangerous... or it might be more common and yet less dangerous.  Either way, one might decide to take steps to mitigate those.

The overwhelming majority of the concealed carry permit owners *I* know, are the nicest, most trust-worthy, friendly, moral, and good people I have ever known.

Fair enough. To the extent that I take any or all of the precautions that you listed, I take them all the time, without fail. Do you carry your personal protection firearm all the time or is it situational? I am counting on your candor, now.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 27, 2018, 04:50:26 pm
Fair enough. To the extent that I take any or all of the precautions that you listed, I take them all the time, without fail. Do you carry your personal protection firearm all the time or is it situational? I am counting on your candor, now.

I carry almost all the time when not inside my house.  It doesn't do any good if you don't have it with you (even if you have it- it might not do any good).  Usually without any real thought, the same way I carry my phone, wallet, glasses, or hat.  On the very rare case of forgetting it, I might feel odd for a short time, but don't obsess over it.  I don't perform a mental situational exercise and determine when to or not to carry or what to carry based on perceived threat.  I can't speak for others out there, but I am guessing most CCP holders are similar.

I love the old saying "the best camera is the one you have with you".

The only exception [to thinking about it or obsessing over it] being when I know I will expect to encounter a so-called "gun free" zone.  That totally screws with normality and certainly makes me uncomfortable because, statistically, that is where one MOST needs to be armed.  At that point, no choice is easy.  If there was only ONE thing I could change [with gun control]- that would be it... elimination of all "gun free" zones for CCP holders.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on February 27, 2018, 05:10:01 pm
after 30 years, we see the exact same thing, and listen to the exact same "why/how come/lets change the laws/change the laws .. how did that help?'" scenario repeat itself.. the handwriting was on the wall, then as it was in the recent event, and the "ball droppers" and Cowards we rely upon to "prevent" and protect.. well.. same thing again...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Elementary_School_shooting_(Stockton)

a few friends and I hit a gunshow a couple days after, and loaded up on SKS's. Ak's and ammo, before the price went sky high about 2 weeks following. It was easily a decade before prices for these ever dropped...

once a criminal... always a criminal?/
I'd say so... from age 11 and 13...and released?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitchell_Johnson_and_Andrew_Golden
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 27, 2018, 05:14:22 pm
I carry almost all the time when not inside my house.  It doesn't do any good if you don't have it with you (even if you have it- it might not do any good).  Usually without any real thought, the same way I carry my phone, wallet, glasses, or hat.  On the very rare case of forgetting it, I might feel odd for a short time, but don't obsess over it.  I don't perform a mental situational exercise and determine when to or not to carry or what to carry based on perceived threat.  I can't speak for others out there, but I am guessing most CCP holders are similar.

I love the old saying "the best camera is the one you have with you".

The only exception [to thinking about it or obsessing over it] being when I know I will expect to encounter a so-called "gun free" zone.  That totally screws with normality and certainly makes me uncomfortable because, statistically, that is where one MOST needs to be armed.  At that point, no choice is easy.  If there was only ONE thing I could change [with gun control]- that would be it... elimination of all "gun free" zones for CCP holders.

I dunno. Allowing carrying in an establishment serving liquor does not sound like a great idea. There is a reason even good guys are not allowed to drive drunk.
Getting back to the general topic of carrying, let's assume you carry all the time, without fail. Now either every member of your family and other loved ones must also carry a personal firearm or you must accompany them for protection each and everytime they step out of the home. Which of those is true? I personally would have some 'splaining to do if I carried a gun and let my wife and son remain unprotected.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on February 27, 2018, 06:15:54 pm
ok
here's the list... I went down thru it...
tell us just how many of these occurrences were committed with an AR type rifle....

I think you will be surprised...

and then toss it back to the "we gotta change your rights, and the laws we don't enforce anyways..." whiners, and tell them all to BAN Glock handguns (LEO's will love that one), and any other "pistol"...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 27, 2018, 06:16:09 pm
I dunno. Allowing carrying in an establishment serving liquor does not sound like a great idea.

So it doesn't matter that I don't drink?  Ever?  So you would ban me from just about every restaurant anyway?  By the way, Virginia is no longer that insane- carrying (with a CCP or not) is perfectly legal where alcohol is served (2010+).  Although you are not legally allowed to carry while drinking alcohol (or otherwise intoxicated/impaired), which is pretty reasonable (since you like the word "reasonable" :) ).

And what about CCP's?  Remember, those are the most responsible, "good" people in the nation, those who have no record of mental illness or drug/alcohol addiction, have never had any felony, who are much more "good" than the police, who have proven they are citizens with a certified address, who have mandated training..... you think those should be banned as well?

Quote
There is a reason even good guys are not allowed to drive drunk.

That is a large jump.  A better analogy would be banning cars anywhere near an establishment serving liquor, maybe?  Does THAT sound reasonable?

Quote
Getting back to the general topic of carrying, let's assume you carry all the time, without fail. Now either every member of your family and other loved ones must also carry a personal firearm or you must accompany them for protection each and everytime they step out of the home.  Which of those is true?

That is a fallacy such as asking someone who did not kill their wife "did you kill your wife with a gun or a knife?"  Obviously this is not an either-or answer.  In your posit, there is no reason why it would HAVE be one way or the other.  Why would there be?

Quote
I personally would have some 'splaining to do if I carried a gun and let my wife and son remain unprotected.

You would be highly paranoid if you believed they could not be allowed out of the house without either being armed or being escorted by someone armed.... unless you lived in a very, very bad area or had reliable knowledge that someone actually was actively trying to target you or your family at that time.

I know there is more risk driving in the snow.... a much higher risk of accident, injury, or death.  I might decide to forego driving to the store due to the snow.  But I might also decide to go anyway.  I might also decide to get a safer vehicle, or put chains on the tires, or have someone with a better vehicle or more experience driving in snow take me.  Life is complicated.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 27, 2018, 06:36:36 pm
ok
here's the list... I went down thru it...
tell us just how many of these occurrences were committed with an AR type rifle....

I think you will be surprised...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_school_shootings_in_the_United_States

And while reading that list, one should note that:

* The list is ALL shootings, the vast majority with no deaths.
* Some are there even with no injuries of anyone.
* They even included "pellet guns" in that lineup.
* Only a few are "mass shootings."
* Many are not inside the school, but just outside on school grounds or parking lots.

Then add up the numbers and compare to deaths (and/or injuries if you like) of children by self-infliction, drunk drivers, child abuse, food allergies, drugs, fights, poison, fires, bees, car/bike/skating/walking/whatever accidents, and you quickly realize that although such shooting are, of course, very tragic... they are just a blip in the data.

Again, emotion is the fuel driving this, not rational thought.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on February 27, 2018, 06:45:46 pm
hey Max... :thumbs:
I was pleasently surprised, while living in Va., to find the CC law perfectly fine, when related to establishments that serve alcohol... carrying is a responsibility in it's own, so it pretty much a no brainer allowing someone to carry if they do not/have not consumed on premises..  especially when criminals don't follow laws, and what better place to find MANDATED carry privilege, than in a bar... where dumb people get realllly dumb, and nobody is gonna protect you or your loved ones better than yourself...

 I always found it rediculous to allow "drive thru liquer/alcohol" sales, and the preponderance of allowing every single gas station you pass, to sell carry out alcohol... like someone ain't gonna pop the top before leaving the driveway......  there was a mini store by my house, on rt 30, where beer flowed like number one sales... and the State police, and County sheriff's from 2 adjoining counties, would set up "shop" about a mile down the road from the store.. it was hilarious watching them all pull out, and driving straight into their worst nightmare...

can't fix stupid... :chugbeer: :chugbeer: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on February 27, 2018, 06:54:24 pm
Anybody remember the outcry to ban tomahawks? No? Well, instead of all the hand ringing and panty wadding the local governor put a bounty on the head of the perps. I'll grant you there was a bit of gender inequality in the bounty but it was a substantial income  for an enterprising good guy with a gun.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Brown_school_massacre
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 27, 2018, 10:56:49 pm

The only exception [to thinking about it or obsessing over it] being when I know I will expect to encounter a so-called "gun free" zone.  That totally screws with normality and certainly makes me uncomfortable

Aye I know the feeling, I feel naked if i leave home without my smartphone
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: turbojoe78 on February 28, 2018, 06:34:11 am
I'm glad we think alike in that matter and in our choice of bikes. To help educate me, why do you have a CC permit and presumably carry a gun?
(Will do my best to check in frequently so that this conversation is not too disjointed)

As for bikes, Dad got my brothers and I a Mini Bike when we were young.  (other kids in the neighborhood had them)
From there we went to dirt bikes, then at 19 I got my first street bike, a 1979 Kawi SR650.  (I'm the oldest of the brothers)
I have had one or more bikes since then.

The other kids in the neighborhood also had BB guns so of course we wanted them too.  Dad said we had to be 10 years old before he would get us a BB gun so on our 10th birthdays we got our BB guns and were taught by Dad how to use them safely.
I liked watching the Rifleman and though lever action guns looked great. My first gun at 10 yrs old was a Daisy Champion 99.
We were only allowed to shoot our guns with my fathers supervision until we had shown him through the years that we knew how to use them responsibly.

For my 18th birthday, my Grandfather gave me his Mossberg 22 cal. bolt action target rifle and me and my friends had plenty of woods around and a large sand pit where we could go shooting.

I still have all the guns I have ever owned, I would have all the motorcycles too if I had the space and the money.

I got my CC License to own and carry handguns after what happened at Sandy Hook for 2 reasons.  First because I have seen how little the regard for human life has grown since I was young.  (the worst thing that ever happened in schools back then was kids would get into fist fights.)  Second was I had always wanted to get a hand gun but always seemed to have something more important to be doing and our 2nd Amend right would always be there ... right?  When I applied for my CCL the officer told me about a 82 yr old gentleman who had been in the week before to apply, when he asked him why at 82 did he want a CCL he was told ... "I have been around for 82 years and always believed we would have our 2nd A.R., with the things I am seeing now, I want to make sure I can get it before our rights get taken away"  That's kind of the same reason I got mine then.

As to why I carry, I was a boy scout, there moto is "Be Prepared".  I don't carry looking for trouble, I hope to never find myself in a situation where I'll ever need to resort to having to defend myself with a gun.  But if I ever did find myself in that position I would prefer to "Be Prepared".

I may only get one chance to save my own life, or the life of someone else, if that situation arises, I want to have my best "shot" at going home alive.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 28, 2018, 11:19:15 am
Now our various state legislatures are starting to advance new legislation in response to this school shooting. And this is where the US gets really strange when compared with virtually any other country; we are not doing it on a national level but a state level. This results in some really odd things such as some states are moving toward tighter gun control while other states are moving toward loosening gun restrictions. Florida is talking about moving in both directions at one time: moving toward perhaps banning some firearms and also moving toward making it easy for teachers to arm themselves. California is moving toward much stricter overall gun control of course (some of the most stringent current firearm legislation in the country is in the state of CA). Other states, such as Arizona, Iowa and Wisconsin are moving toward fewer restrictions and / or firearms and shooting protections such as a state constitutional firearm amendment, protecting shooting ranges and similar.

To non- Americans, this must appear beyond strange. To most Americans, I think it appears a little strange but also annoying because no matter which side one is on, some state or other is moving the 'wrong' way.

The US can, of course, legislate on the federal level as well but that is not likely to happen as one political faction controls the Executive and both houses of Congress right now and there is little chance of substantial firearms legislation passing. Of course this can and will change in the future and the 'other' party will control one or more of the three sections mentioned (the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives) and so very different things may then become possible.

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 28, 2018, 11:44:05 am
Which reminds me:

Did you do any digging into the Redlight laws such as the one coming in in RI?

What happens if the person crosses to a state without any such law? Can they just get a firearm there?

What happens if they go to a State with the same law? Can the judgement in one State apply in another State?


Now our various state legislatures are starting to advance new legislation in response to this school shooting. And this is where the US gets really strange when compared with virtually any other country; we are not doing it on a national level but a state level. This results in some really odd things such as some states are moving toward tighter gun control while other states are moving toward loosening gun restrictions. Florida is talking about moving in both directions at one time: moving toward perhaps banning some firearms and also moving toward making it easy for teachers to arm themselves. California is moving toward much stricter overall gun control of course (some of the most stringent current firearm legislation in the country is in the state of CA). Other states, such as Arizona, Iowa and Wisconsin are moving toward fewer restrictions and / or firearms and shooting protections such as a state constitutional firearm amendment, protecting shooting ranges and similar.

To non- Americans, this must appear beyond strange. To most Americans, I think it appears a little strange but also annoying because no matter which side one is on, some state or other is moving the 'wrong' way.

The US can, of course, legislate on the federal level as well but that is not likely to happen as one political faction controls the Executive and both houses of Congress right now and there is little chance of substantial firearms legislation passing. Of course this can and will change in the future and the 'other' party will control one or more of the three sections mentioned (the President, the Senate and the House of Representatives) and so very different things may then become possible.

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 28, 2018, 12:28:44 pm
I think I misspoke: it is called the 'red flag' law.

Crossing state lines and buying firearms: no, that is illegal but not because of this law, it is against federal law (in most circumstances, exception noted later). No person can purchase a firearm unless he / she is a resident of that state at the time of purchase. So nothing to do with the red flag law, we cannot cross state lines and buy firearms under any circumstances unless one is also a resident of that state also; it is possible for a person to hold 'residence' in more than one state at a time (such as a summer house, vacation house, etc.).

As to the law crossing into other states, no, the law and hence the restriction would not follow into another state. But as written above, one would have to prove residence in any state where one tries to purchase a firearm and that must be physical proof, such as an official I.D. card issued by some state agency, showing a residence as a mailing address in that state, and in some cases, written proof of something such as a utility bill, again showing one's name and a residence as an address in the state one is trying to purchase a firearm in. We are not supposed to have driver's licenses in multiple states at the same time so the way it <could> work would be something such as: I am a RI resident. But if I also owned property in, say, Vermont, I would also be a resident of Vermont also. So if in Vermont, I would use my RI driver's license to prove identity and at the same time present a utility bill with MY name on it showing a valid Vermont residential mailing address and stating that I was, at this moment in time, a resident of Vermont.  The odds that that would happen are pretty remote, and besides, it is extremely unlikely to be used by anyone under 'red flag' restriction to actually purchase a firearm in another state.

If you look at statistics, our (the US) high gunshot wound numbers are NOT the result of long guns (rifles and shotguns) but the result of handguns. Further, the huge majority of our nefarious handgun deaths, such as those in sections of large cities that are gang and or drug related are done with ILLEGAL firearms in the first place. So the finer points of a possible work- around or duping of actual laws is not now and never has been a problem of any amount. It has always been a problem of those having already committed at least one felony in the first place to even have possession of the firearm. Which is why most people find the idea of 'gun free' zones a farce to begin with because someone who is going to shoot a rival gang member with an illegally possessed firearm in the first place certainly will not be slowed down in the least if potentially facing another, relatively minor felony in addition to the major felonies he / she is about to commit. It would be similar to making a law that makes it illegal to smoke in a car that one stole; if a person has already committed a significant felony by stealing a car, why in the world would that person suddenly be put off in the least about going right ahead and sparking up a smoke while making the getaway?

Brian

Which reminds me:

Did you do any digging into the Redlight laws such as the one coming in in RI?

What happens if the person crosses to a state without any such law? Can they just get a firearm there?

What happens if they go to a State with the same law? Can the judgement in one State apply in another State?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on February 28, 2018, 12:30:23 pm
Which reminds me:

Did you do any digging into the Redlight laws such as the one coming in in RI?

What happens if the person crosses to a state without any such law? Can they just get a firearm there?

What happens if they go to a State with the same law? Can the judgement in one State apply in another State?

This is actually complicated.  Technically, you can't just buy a gun out of state dealer.  It has to go through an FFL.  So you would have to get it transferred to an FLL in your home state (they will know this when they do a mandatory background check) and they will finish the transaction, after a background check.  And they must follow the laws of your home state.

If you are talking about carrying, the moment you step foot in another state, you must comply with that state's laws.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: MAN OF BLUES on February 28, 2018, 12:37:43 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_by_state

lots of terms here being "surmised"...
Red flag? Red Light?

I'm thinking it's the section relating to "Peacable Journey", which means transporting thru various states... but I may be wrong...

anyways, it is pretty much always based on state by state laws, and many of which just defer to Fed Law, as generically they didn't want to subject time to it

Oh, My understanding of "Red Flag" law, is :
"the rights of the Police, to disarm, and hold firearms from anyone they deem questionable, for the purpose of further examination of said person"...
.... and to return said firearm, or retain it permanently, based on the outcome of the persons identity, or status within the realms of the specific state they are in when approached/questioned/flagged.

I think Washington State, Indiana, Connecticut, are states with the Red Flag law currently...Corrected to add others
defined as:
"The police may temporarily take guns away from people a judge deems a threat to themselves or others."
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on February 28, 2018, 12:40:40 pm
He meant can one cross a state line and purchase a firearm in that (new) state. And the answer is generally no (prevented by federal law) but rarely yes (someone has legal residence in two different states at one time).

What you are talking about is transferring (as in buying or selling) a firearm legally between two people in two different states. And the path for that takes two FFL (Federal Firearms License, not easy to get and those holding them are well vetted beforehand, and they are issued by the federal gov't, not any state) license holders, one in each state. It works like this: I find a firearm for sale in a different state that I want to purchase. I make the monetary transaction (pay for it, as well as the additional FFL and shipping fees) and the current owner takes the firearm to a licensed FFL who takes possession of the firearm, leaves a paperwork trail (required by law), then sends the firearm to the FFL of my choice, in my state. I then go to my FFL, pay any state sales tax, fill out both federal and state paperwork on said firearm, get a background check and if required in my state, wait the mandatory period (10 days in RI) an can then take possession of the firearm from my FFL holder (usually a gun store but not always, can also be a gunsmith, gun manufacturer, etc.).

And so yes, there is a method in place that is legal but properly vets the firearm purchaser. And contrary to some groups' claims, one cannot buy a firearm 'from the Internet' and skip any of these steps.

Brian

This is actually complicated.  Technically, you can't just buy a gun out of state dealer.  It has to go through an FFL.  So you would have to get it transferred to an FLL in your home state (they will know this when they do a mandatory background check) and they will finish the transaction, after a background check.  And they must follow the laws of your home state.

If you are talking about carrying, the moment you step foot in another state, you must comply with that state's laws.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on February 28, 2018, 12:48:05 pm
Our Red Flag law was repealed in 1896 ;)

I think I misspoke: it is called the 'red flag' law.

Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Conniesaki on February 28, 2018, 03:36:52 pm
Now our various state legislatures are starting to advance new legislation in response to this school shooting. And this is where the US gets really strange when compared with virtually any other country; we are not doing it on a national level but a state level. This results in some really odd things ...

I don't think it's odd. Heck it's the law, and it even has a title: States' rights. I live in FL, and just because our neighbors in Alabama think about a certain issue one way doesn't mean we Floridians have to follow suit.

For example, we don't think inbreeding is a good idea.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 28, 2018, 03:48:38 pm
Quote
So it doesn't matter that I don't drink?  Ever?  So you would ban me from just about every restaurant anyway?  By the way, Virginia is no longer that insane- carrying (with a CCP or not) is perfectly legal where alcohol is served (2010+).  Although you are not legally allowed to carry while drinking alcohol (or otherwise intoxicated/impaired), which is pretty reasonable (since you like the word "reasonable" :) ).

Congrats on being a teetotaler. However, there are health benefits to an occasional drink, probably from making the subject less uptight.  :)
Yes , many states now let CCP carry in liquor serving establishments so long as alcohol is not being imbibed. That seems a reasonable accommodation, similar to a designated driver for drinking buddies. Letting an intoxicated person carry a gun or drive a car is a bad idea whether it a good guy or bad guy (or gal).

Quote
And what about CCP's?  Remember, those are the most responsible, "good" people in the nation, those who have no record of mental illness or drug/alcohol addiction, have never had any felony, who are much more "good" than the police, who have proven they are citizens with a certified address, who have mandated training..... you think those should be banned as well?

Unnecessary, over the top pandering. Just because a person has undergone CCP qualification does not make them"good" people or that they will stay "good" the rest of their lives.

Quote
That is a large jump.  A better analogy would be banning cars anywhere near an establishment serving liquor, maybe?  Does THAT sound reasonable?

I'm not even sure where this came from.

Quote
That is a fallacy such as asking someone who did not kill their wife "did you kill your wife with a gun or a knife?"  Obviously this is not an either-or answer.  In your posit, there is no reason why it would HAVE be one way or the other.  Why would there be?

You would be highly paranoid if you believed they could not be allowed out of the house without either being armed or being escorted by someone armed.... unless you lived in a very, very bad area or had reliable knowledge that someone actually was actively trying to target you or your family at that time.

lol. Nobody asked if you killed your wife. Simply put, if you need the protection of a firearm, even if just a precaution, why doesn't your family deserve the same protection? Don't dwell on this. I suspect that not too many CCP holders can answer that question logically either.

Quote
I know there is more risk driving in the snow.... a much higher risk of accident, injury, or death.  I might decide to forego driving to the store due to the snow.  But I might also decide to go anyway.  I might also decide to get a safer vehicle, or put chains on the tires, or have someone with a better vehicle or more experience driving in snow take me.  Life is complicated.

The debate seems to have gone completely off the rails by this point. Anyway since you are a good sport, are you ready for one more question?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on February 28, 2018, 03:53:53 pm
I don't think it's odd. Heck it's the law, and it even has a title: States' rights. I live in FL, and just because our neighbors in Alabama think about a certain issue one way doesn't mean we Floridians have to follow suit.

For example, we don't think inbreeding is a good idea.

lol. SEC rivalry or general hostility?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Conniesaki on February 28, 2018, 08:28:07 pm
lol. SEC rivalry or general hostility?

Yes!  ;D
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on March 04, 2018, 06:59:16 pm
The 2nd Amendment as ratified is one sentence. To be preamble it would need to consist of one or more sentences or paragraphs.

However I'm sure somebody wll pop up with the relevant judgements at some point ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1uG3uKABOE (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1uG3uKABOE)  9:40
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on March 05, 2018, 12:57:04 am
[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1uG3uKABOE[/url] ([url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f1uG3uKABOE[/url])  9:40


Not a very good start when  at about 38 seconds in the video states:

"For the first time men enacted into law human rights not just Government given right"


I'm sorry but since when was it a "human right" to own a gun? 

You guys have a Constitutional right to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia but that's it (and as we've all agreed that can be changed, although unlikely to be).


From the UN (which the USA has signed up  too let me remind you before anyone says "stuff the UN this is the USA")


"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more.  Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination."

http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html (http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html)

The kids in this shooting plus the many more before were all denied their basic human rights .

Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on March 05, 2018, 01:03:42 am
oh and at 48 seconds in there is the incorrect statement that "the authors deemed the rights so important they made provision to protect those rights so they could never be taken away"

Nope, as we've agreed elsewhere they made provision so that those rights could be amended via due process even if that due process is long winded and difficult to achieve.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on March 05, 2018, 05:43:25 am
Not a very good start when  at about 38 seconds in the video states:

The video is a bit overly dramatic, for sure.

Quote
You guys have a Constitutional right to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia but that's it

I couldn't disagree more strongly.

Quote
The kids in this shooting plus the many more before were all denied their basic human rights.

Indeed they were- by people breaking the law, not by inanimate objects.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on March 05, 2018, 06:26:08 am

I'm sorry but since when was it a "human right" to own a gun? 

You guys have a Constitutional right to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia but that's it (and as we've all agreed that can be changed, although unlikely to be).

See...this attitude is why we decided not to be colonies anymore.

We have a natural right to self defense. If that takes personal firearms to do that so be it. The Second Amendment as the rest of the Amendments are written into the COTUS to define what the fedgov cannot do or cannot take away. You anti-rights people just don't get it.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Rhino on March 05, 2018, 07:02:52 am
Not a very good start when  at about 38 seconds in the video states:

"For the first time men enacted into law human rights not just Government given right"


I'm sorry but since when was it a "human right" to own a gun? 

You guys have a Constitutional right to bear arms for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated militia but that's it (and as we've all agreed that can be changed, although unlikely to be).


From the UN (which the USA has signed up  too let me remind you before anyone says "stuff the UN this is the USA")


"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, regardless of race, sex, nationality, ethnicity, language, religion, or any other status. Human rights include the right to life and liberty, freedom from slavery and torture, freedom of opinion and expression, the right to work and education, and many more.  Everyone is entitled to these rights, without discrimination."

[url]http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html[/url] ([url]http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/index.html[/url])

The kids in this shooting plus the many more before were all denied their basic human rights .


1) precisely why weapons suitable for use in a militia are the "right of the people" to keep and bear
2) the un is full of crap and at no time will I be subject to the interpretation of some un bureaucrat
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on March 05, 2018, 07:26:14 am
See...this attitude is why we decided not to be colonies anymore.

We have a natural right to self defense. If that takes personal firearms to do that so be it. The Second Amendment as the rest of the Amendments are written into the COTUS to define what the fedgov cannot do or cannot take away. You anti-rights people just don't get it.

Apologies, there was me stating quire clearly that you do have a Constitutional right to bear Arms for the purposes of maintaining a well regulated Militia as per the 27 words contained in one sentence written 240 odd years ago.

I 've also stated that your CO#onstituition also allows for amendments to be made via due process however the reality is that it.s almost impossible to do so.

How does that make me anti gun?


#confused


Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on March 05, 2018, 07:27:08 am
1) precisely why weapons suitable for use in a militia are the "right of the people" to keep and bear
2) the un if fill of crap and at no time will I be subject to the interpretation of some un bureaucrat

however there is also the phrase "well regulated" which suggests some form of discipline and possibly control over the type of arms that can be kept.

Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Rhino on March 05, 2018, 08:29:52 am
however there is also the phrase "well regulated" which suggests some form of discipline and possibly control over the type of arms that can be kept.

Definitely "well regulated" suggests discipline and training. George Mason, author of the second amendment:

“I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them…”
George Mason (1725-1792)

This statement and many more like this by him and the other authors of the constitution suggest that the arms referenced in the 2nd amendment were for military purpose and that they be possessed by ordinary citizens, not just those in the National Guard, an organization completely controlled by the government.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on March 05, 2018, 08:56:42 am
Apologies, there was me stating quire clearly that you do have a Constitutional right to bear Arms for the purposes of maintaining a well regulated Militia as per the 27 words contained in one sentence written 240 odd years ago.

I 've also stated that your CO#onstituition also allows for amendments to be made via due process however the reality is that it.s almost impossible to do so.

How does that make me anti gun?

#confused
Never said anti-gun.

Again, you and many others misunderstand the COTUS and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution does not grant or guarantee us our rights. It stipulates and defines the limits of the fedgov. Our 'Rights' cannot be arbitrarily taken away...but they can be surrendered by and uneducated and misinformed populace.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on March 05, 2018, 10:00:16 am
Never said anti-gun.

Again, you and many others misunderstand the COTUS and the Bill of Rights. The Constitution does not grant or guarantee us our rights. It stipulates and defines the limits of the fedgov. Our 'Rights' cannot be arbitrarily taken away...but they can be surrendered by and uneducated and misinformed populace.

I stand corrected, you said "Anti Rights"


which I'm not either, I have simply stated (on more than one occasion)  that your Constitution does allow for those "rights" to be taken away by following due process.

Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on March 05, 2018, 11:23:06 am
As an interesting aside: What we are seeing here now is an unusual (perhaps unprecedented?) movement that is national but being carried out on the state level, in each state. There is virtually no chance of any federal firearms legislation, at least not anything substantial, being passed at this time by our fed gov't. But there is a national movement for that very thing, so what is actually happening is that individual states are rapidly, very rapidly, passing significant firearms legislation but only some of them, the typically 'anti- gun' states. It is a really strange result of our loose federation of states system that we have.

This is going to result in even increasing separation of groups of states along the overall conservative / liberal lines.

The only real downside is when a person who is an 'us' happens to be caught as a resident of a 'them' state (or vice- versa).

Back to your idea of altering the Constitution for a moment; yes, it is possible and has been done in the past but never for such fundamental things as already specified rights w/in the Constitution or existing Amendments. With the one glaring exception of prohibition but that was really just a bad idea being erased a mere 13 years after it was passed in teh first place. I do not believe we will see the removal or even alteration of any of the first ten Amendments (often called The Bill of Rights) in the foreseeable future.

Brian

I stand corrected, you said "Anti Rights"


which I'm not either, I have simply stated (on more than one occasion)  that your Constitution does allow for those "rights" to be taken away by following due process.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on March 05, 2018, 12:01:20 pm
I get that it's unlikely but some people need to accept that the mechanism is in place and that it could in theory be changed.


I  believe (to summarise)  one method is by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures" and then that  a proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States)

As you say, there's a bit of a sea change at the moment with various states bringing in their own legislation and I'm sure people will be keeping count to see if  the number of states starts to approach that critical mass required for a constitutional convention (33 from 49).


As an interesting aside: What we are seeing here now is an unusual (perhaps unprecedented?) movement that is national but being carried out on the state level, in each state. There is virtually no chance of any federal firearms legislation, at least not anything substantial, being passed at this time by our fed gov't. But there is a national movement for that very thing, so what is actually happening is that individual states are rapidly, very rapidly, passing significant firearms legislation but only some of them, the typically 'anti- gun' states. It is a really strange result of our loose federation of states system that we have.

This is going to result in even increasing separation of groups of states along the overall conservative / liberal lines.

The only real downside is when a person who is an 'us' happens to be caught as a resident of a 'them' state (or vice- versa).

Back to your idea of altering the Constitution for a moment; yes, it is possible and has been done in the past but never for such fundamental things as already specified rights w/in the Constitution or existing Amendments. With the one glaring exception of prohibition but that was really just a bad idea being erased a mere 13 years after it was passed in teh first place. I do not believe we will see the removal or even alteration of any of the first ten Amendments (often called The Bill of Rights) in the foreseeable future.

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on March 05, 2018, 12:41:31 pm
I <think> everyone 'gets it' and we know it can be changed. All I am saying is that it is not going to actually happen in the foreseeable future, at least not to the actual document and Bill of Rights (the Bill of Rights was actually part of the Constitution sent to the states and both were ratified together BTW; our southern states would not ratify the Constitution without the first ten Amendments and that was a wise policy indeed).

A method to add an amendment to our Constitution, and the only one to ever actually be used is: a bill is introduced to both the House of Representatives and the Senate. A 'Super majority' of both houses must vote Yes on each bill. That is 75% or 3/4 of each house. (not bloody likely in your vernacular) Then, the amendment is passed onto each of "the several" states, and they must ratify it again by the 3/4 margin either through the state legislature of a specially convened ratification convention in each state. (not bloody likely.... squared)

In the past, the state ratification process was open- ended regarding time but for quite some time now, they have had an installed time- limit of seven years after which time they vaporize if not ratified. This is what happened to our Equal Rights Amendment.... it could not reach the 38 state ratification requirement and so it just timed out.

There is just no possibility to alter the second Amendment through this process, again at least for the foreseeable future.

I get that it's unlikely but some people need to accept that the mechanism is in place and that it could in theory be changed.


I  believe (to summarise)  one method is by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures" and then that  a proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States)

As you say, there's a bit of a sea change at the moment with various states bringing in their own legislation and I'm sure people will be keeping count to see if  the number of states starts to approach that critical mass required for a constitutional convention (33 from 49).
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on March 05, 2018, 12:51:37 pm
That's the other method however the way things *seem* to be going it's more likely that the method I postulated is more likely to happen (nb that's only "more likely"  as opposed to probably will):)



I <think> everyone 'gets it' and we know it can be changed. All I am saying is that it is not going to actually happen in the foreseeable future, at least not to the actual document and Bill of Rights (the Bill of Rights was actually part of the Constitution sent to the states and both were ratified together BTW; our southern states would not ratify the Constitution without the first ten Amendments and that was a wise policy indeed).

A method to add an amendment to our Constitution, and the only one to ever actually be used is: a bill is introduced to both the House of Representatives and the Senate. A 'Super majority' of both houses must vote Yes on each bill. That is 75% or 3/4 of each house. (not bloody likely in your vernacular) Then, the amendment is passed onto each of "the several" states, and they must ratify it again by the 3/4 margin either through the state legislature of a specially convened ratification convention in each state. (not bloody likely.... squared)

In the past, the state ratification process was open- ended regarding time but for quite some time now, they have had an installed time- limit of seven years after which time they vaporize if not ratified. This is what happened to our Equal Rights Amendment.... it could not reach the 38 state ratification requirement and so it just timed out.

There is just no possibility to alter the second Amendment through this process, again at least for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on March 05, 2018, 12:53:55 pm
BTW am I correct in saying that the USA doesn't have the ability/due process to allow for a national referendum (as we had with Brexit) where each person gets to vote on something at a national level?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on March 05, 2018, 01:42:05 pm
I believe that is correct. We cannot even vote on a national level for national things such as the office of the President. It is always 'the several states' that actually control our 'national' votes.

Brian

BTW am I correct in saying that the USA doesn't have the ability/due process to allow for a national referendum (as we had with Brexit) where each person gets to vote on something at a national level?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: VirginiaJim on March 05, 2018, 01:50:08 pm
BTW am I correct in saying that the USA doesn't have the ability/due process to allow for a national referendum (as we had with Brexit) where each person gets to vote on something at a national level?


Typically this happens in individual states and never on a national level.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on March 05, 2018, 01:52:49 pm

Typically this happens in individual states and never on a national level.
ta, that's pretty much what I said/thought ;)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on March 05, 2018, 01:54:16 pm
Ta,

maybe someone should Propose  an Amendment ;)


I believe that is correct. We cannot even vote on a national level for national things such as the office of the President. It is always 'the several states' that actually control our 'national' votes.

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on March 05, 2018, 02:38:24 pm
OFFTOPIC: Very quickly, we elect our presidents through the states voting. The state vote (called the Electoral vote) and the popular vote usually coincide. But every now and then, they do not; the popular vote is for the other candidate but the electoral (states) vote is the one that is always used. This happened in 2000 and again in 2016. When it does happen, a huge ruckus starts because 1) most Americans do not know how the system works and are surprised that this can even happen and 2) the losing side is REALLY riled up because they actually carried the popular vote. So there is a flurry of action to 'fix' this problem (alter our system). But that takes a lot of work that no one wants to do and the public is fickle and soon enough is not interested in that anymore. So it fizzles out and we carry on.... until the next time it happens.

It would be very straightforward to alter so we can actually do a national majority vote for some, limited federal- level things such as the office of the President but that is not likely to ever happen.

And fixing the electoral system would be hugely easier than altering any of the first ten amendments to the Constitution.....  ;)

Brian

Ta,

maybe someone should Propose  an Amendment ;)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on March 05, 2018, 02:40:56 pm
Is the electoral system broken?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on March 05, 2018, 03:40:50 pm
Back to your idea of altering the Constitution for a moment; yes, it is possible and has been done in the past but never for such fundamental things as already specified rights w/in the Constitution or existing Amendments. With the one glaring exception of prohibition but that was really just a bad idea being erased a mere 13 years after it was passed in teh first place. I do not believe we will see the removal or even alteration of any of the first ten Amendments (often called The Bill of Rights) in the foreseeable future.

Although it is possible, it is inconceivable that any admendment would ever pass that would interfere with the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments, that are practically part of the original document).  Personally, I think that would indicate a total failure of the whole American experiment.

BTW am I correct in saying that the USA doesn't have the ability/due process to allow for a national referendum (as we had with Brexit) where each person gets to vote on something at a national level?

I don't believe such a thing exists.  Although there is nothing to prevent legislation that could call for a referendum of that type.  Still, not sure it would be a great idea.  Direct government by the people is historically a disaster.  Most "normal" people typically do not have the time, skills, or knowledge to really understand a problem to the point of voting intelligently about it.  That is why we have a representative republic.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on March 05, 2018, 03:47:19 pm
And fixing the electoral system would be hugely easier than altering any of the first ten amendments to the Constitution.....  ;)


What is far, far more broken here is not the electoral system, but the actual "first past the post" voting system.  If there was ever any ONE thing that needs changing, that would be the thing.  And it can be done, because States can choose to do it without any need for swaying the whole country.  We wouldn't need any change to the Federal Constitution, either.  I don't think it would even touch most of the States' Constitutions.

http://fairvote.org (http://fairvote.org)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting)

Before computers, such a system of instant runoff voting would not have been practical.  But now it would be trivial.  And it is needed in primaries just as much as in actual elections.

Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on March 05, 2018, 03:59:47 pm
OFFTOPIC: The Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the US Constitution, were ratified at the same time as the Constitution itself and so are, in reality, part of the Constitution, at least in my [unlearned] view and understanding.

Going by memory here: it was part of a deal between the northern and southern states to ratify the Constitution in the first place. Some very powerful Southerners (Virginians I believe) were opposed to the Constitution as written because there were no or insufficient guarantees in it to prevent the reforming of a monarchy, or to prevent a handful of heavily populated states (the northern states at that time) from gaining control of the entire federal gov't. An additional provision of this 'deal' was locating the capital of the US in the southern states as it was originally in New York (a northern state). The northern states would not agree to the 'southern state' placement, hence the creation of Washington, DC, which while an independent district of the US, was originally part of Virginia and clearly in "the south".

As any of this applies to the topic at hand: I think we can all agree, there will be no alteration of The Bill of Rights in the foreseeable future.

Brian

Although it is possible, it is inconceivable that any admendment would ever pass that would interfere with the Bill of Rights (the first 10 Amendments, that are practically part of the original document).  Personally, I think that would indicate a total failure of the whole American experiment.

<snip>

Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on March 05, 2018, 04:05:07 pm
Apologies, there was me stating quire clearly that you do have a Constitutional right to bear Arms for the purposes of maintaining a well regulated Militia

The reason we are reacting negatively is that you have essentially said the ONLY reason to have gun rights is to maintain militias.  And that is not what the Amendment says (to those who understand the context of what was written).

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The first sentence is not a directive nor a requirement for the second sentence.  It is just a preamble that seeks to give a reason why the second sentence is so important.  The key word here is "people."  Not militia.  "People" are all the citizens.  Had they meant it otherwise, it might have been worded more like:"

"A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Quote
How does that make me anti gun?
#confused

If you believe what I interpreted is what you said, then you believe that gun rights exist ONLY and SOLELY for militia use.  And that is in direct conflict with the rights of individuals to be armed outside of a militia.  And that is, most assuredly, an anti-gun-rights stance.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on March 05, 2018, 10:53:20 pm
OFFTOPIC.Speaking of the South, you guys still have the Corwin Amendment, which would have forever preserved slavery in those states where it was legal in 1861 and which was tabled to try & prevent the Civil War, on the books.

Now as stated there is no time limit on Ratification and whilst I accept the 27th was an exception (taking 200+ years to ratify and then only following a schoolkids essay which brought it to peoples attention) in theory this Amendment could still be passed even today.

OFFTOPIC: The Bill of Rights, the first ten Amendments to the US Constitution, were ratified at the same time as the Constitution itself and so are, in reality, part of the Constitution, at least in my [unlearned] view and understanding.

Going by memory here: it was part of a deal between the northern and southern states to ratify the Constitution in the first place. Some very powerful Southerners (Virginians I believe) were opposed to the Constitution as written because there were no or insufficient guarantees in it to prevent the reforming of a monarchy, or to prevent a handful of heavily populated states (the northern states at that time) from gaining control of the entire federal gov't. An additional provision of this 'deal' was locating the capital of the US in the southern states as it was originally in New York (a northern state). The northern states would not agree to the 'southern state' placement, hence the creation of Washington, DC, which while an independent district of the US, was originally part of Virginia and clearly in "the south".

As any of this applies to the topic at hand: I think we can all agree, there will be no alteration of The Bill of Rights in the foreseeable future.

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on March 05, 2018, 11:03:38 pm
The reason we are reacting negatively is that you have essentially said the ONLY reason to have gun rights is to maintain militias.  And that is not what the Amendment says (to those who understand the context of what was written).

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The first sentence is not a directive nor a requirement for the second sentence.  It is just a preamble that seeks to give a reason why the second sentence is so important.  The key word here is "people."  Not militia.  "People" are all the citizens.  Had they meant it otherwise, it might have been worded more like:"

"A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of militias to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If you believe what I interpreted is what you said, then you believe that gun rights exist ONLY and SOLELY for militia use.  And that is in direct conflict with the rights of individuals to be armed outside of a militia.  And that is, most assuredly, an anti-gun-rights stance.

Let's be honest, nobody knows what was in the minds of the people who drew up the original US Constitution other than the words they left behind and they're open to interpretation.

If the same thing was drawn up today , in a world where public opinion and communications are so much different then would the wording have been made more precise? (although that leads to it's own problems)

Yes it may be classed as preamble but it sets the scene. It doesn't start off by saying " For the purposes of allowing home defence," or  "For the purposes of preventing the Government suppressing the People,"

NB its not a separate sentence, its part of the bigger sentence as it is separated by a comma not a full stop (or period). The Second amendment is one sentence.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on March 06, 2018, 06:24:39 am
Agreed, many parts of the Constitution are vague, and many thing are simply not addressed by the Constitution at all (an entire area of study unto itself- what does it mean when something is [not in] the Constitution). But the writers of the documents are well known by other writings, and I believe one can easily get a sense or overall feeling as to the intention of each section of those documents. Personally, I find too much emphasis on a single word, or word order, etc. when a slightly more distant view actually works better to get the 'flavor' of what was written and especially, ratified by 'the people'.

The documents are now so dated that they must be interpreted and the ideas and ideals in them applied, not taken literally. For example: does one have a right to expect private communication when using e-mail? What did the 'founding fathers' think of e-mail and its use? That is why we have a Supreme Court, to deliberate over these things and fit the ideals into the current world. And overall, I think they do an outstanding job of it though many of their more middle- of- the- road judgments leave both sides of some issues unhappy (abortion, not gun control, comes immediately to mind as an example of that).

At this point in time, no one has any chance of wiping out the second Amendment of our Constitution. All of the arguments are about the finer points of it: does 'bear' mean carry around in a shopping mall? In some states it does, in some states it does not. What exactly is an 'arm' as referenced by 2A? Is it anthrax or never gas? No, and no one is arguing or fighting to get those included. No, our arguments are on much finger points such as can magazine size be limited? Should it be limited? Are some types of firearms that are functionally identical to other types to be singled out and withheld from the general public? These are the questions of today, not whether or not we should have a 2A or if it applies to individuals or 'militias'.

Brian

Let's be honest, nobody knows what was in the minds of the people who drew up the original US Constitution other than the words they left behind and they're open to interpretation.

If the same thing was drawn up today , in a world where public opinion and communications are so much different then would the wording have been made more precise? (although that leads to it's own problems)

Yes it may be classed as preamble but it sets the scene. It doesn't start off by saying " For the purposes of allowing home defence," or  "For the purposes of preventing the Government suppressing the People,"

NB its not a separate sentence, its part of the bigger sentence as it is separated by a comma not a full stop (or period). The Second amendment is one sentence.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on March 06, 2018, 04:21:41 pm
Agreed, many parts of the Constitution are vague, and many thing are simply not addressed by the Constitution at all (an entire area of study unto itself- what does it mean when something is [not in] the Constitution).

Actually, that is addressed pretty clearly in the Bill of Rights as Amendment 10:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

So anything not specifically given to the Fed (or denied the States) is a power of the States or the People (citizens).  The tricky part is figuring out what exactly IS given to the Fed in the document.   IMHO- most of the Federal laws on the books are probably not at all Constitutional if the principles were applied "correctly".  The Fed was supposed to be VERY small, with VERY limited powers.  Perfect example- ANYTHING in the Fed that has to do with education or health care is clearly State powers, not Federal.  I believe the founding Fathers, even given years of background and history and context of today, would STILL be horrified by what the Federal government has become.

Quote
But the writers of the documents are well known by other writings, and I believe one can easily get a sense or overall feeling as to the intention of each section of those documents.

Exactly.  That greatly helps putting it into context.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on March 06, 2018, 04:39:42 pm
Spent this afternoon at my State House, 'standing up' for the cause regarding new bills being introduced into both houses (State Senate, State House of Representatives). Excellent Pro 2A (Pro- Second Amendment, in other words, pro- gun for those not in the US or familiar with the cryptic term) turnout, clogged up the works pretty well and several people involved told me the turnout was better than 10:1 on the pro- 2A side. We will see.....

I might even be on the news as I was standing right next to a gentleman who had a particularly antagonistic sign he was holding up. We are on the same side of the issue but I really do not think being antagonistic or worse yet, threatening, is the best way forward. His sign was absolutely the former and a bit of the latter and I honestly doubt it will win many 'hearts and minds' of those in the middle on this issue. Just my opinion of course.

Of course all this legislation is to limit / remove firearms in some way or another. It is now 6 March, closing in on four weeks since the FL school shootings and to the best of my knowledge, there has been no large scale, concerted effort to make public schools in the US any safer. Firearms legislation <may> work at some point in the future but limited access and screening of everyone entering a public school would ALREADY be working had there been a serious effort in that direction. And by serious, I mean federally sanctioned, federally posted guidelines on how to do it and federal direction and financial underwriting of such a thing. But here we are.....

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on March 06, 2018, 04:49:40 pm
Spent this afternoon at my State House, 'standing up' for the cause regarding new bills being introduced into both houses (State Senate, State House of Representatives). Excellent Pro 2A (Pro- Second Amendment, in other words, pro- gun for those not in the US or familiar with the cryptic term) turnout, clogged up the works pretty well and several people involved told me the turnout was better than 10:1 on the pro- 2A side. We will see.....

I [and many others] do the same thing every year at the General Assembly (VA).  There it is more like 100:1 on the pro-2A rights side.  We completely swarm the building- and CCP's are allowed to carry there, too.  But it is always a continuous fight.  It takes but a blink of an eye for rights to disappear or erode to nothing.  Getting rights back later is always a LOT more difficult than keeping them in the first place.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: mikeyw64 on March 07, 2018, 12:49:23 am
Be interesting to see if the "March for Our Lives" on 24th March will sway anyone/lead to further changes?


Yes I know that everytown (who are part of this along with the NeverAgain movement)  are  the polar opposite to you guys in the NRA and that many of you you disapprove of them but they do have exactly the same Constitutional rights to express themselves as you do.

Also aware that many people claim that Cameron Kasky etc may be "plants" , I have no idea. WHat I do know is that kids these days are far more savvy and have grown up with social media more and it is the youth that will eventually decide what their future will be.


 

Of course all this legislation is to limit / remove firearms in some way or another. It is now 6 March, closing in on four weeks since the FL school shootings and to the best of my knowledge, there has been no large scale, concerted effort to make public schools in the US any safer. Firearms legislation <may> work at some point in the future but limited access and screening of everyone entering a public school would ALREADY be working had there been a serious effort in that direction. And by serious, I mean federally sanctioned, federally posted guidelines on how to do it and federal direction and financial underwriting of such a thing. But here we are.....

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on March 20, 2018, 05:13:57 pm
March 20:  "Good Guy with Gun Opened Fire on MD High School Shooter, Ended Threat"

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/20/good-guy-gun-opened-fire-md-high-school-shooter-end-threat/ (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/20/good-guy-gun-opened-fire-md-high-school-shooter-end-threat/)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20/shooting-at-great-mills-high-school-in-maryland-school-confirms.html (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20/shooting-at-great-mills-high-school-in-maryland-school-confirms.html)

And then, the ultra-left CNN version; full of emotion, sad quotes, and the obligatory focus on how it is [supposedly] the 17th "shooting" this year [probably using their creative definitions], and student protests, cute catch phrases, calls to action, and all kinds of thing that have nothing to do with the story but everything to do with their "agenda spin":

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/great-mills-high-school-shooting/ (https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/great-mills-high-school-shooting/)

Didn't bother with NYT/Washing Post, but I would expect the same thing.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on March 20, 2018, 06:21:56 pm
...and wtf is a 'resource' officer? Are they so PC they won't say cop or guard or armed hall monitor?
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: sanmo on March 20, 2018, 06:32:55 pm
March 20:  "Good Guy with Gun Opened Fire on MD High School Shooter, Ended Threat"

[url]http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/20/good-guy-gun-opened-fire-md-high-school-shooter-end-threat/[/url] ([url]http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2018/03/20/good-guy-gun-opened-fire-md-high-school-shooter-end-threat/[/url])

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20/shooting-at-great-mills-high-school-in-maryland-school-confirms.html[/url] ([url]http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20/shooting-at-great-mills-high-school-in-maryland-school-confirms.html[/url])

And then, the ultra-left CNN version; full of emotion, sad quotes, and the obligatory focus on how it is [supposedly] the 17th "shooting" this year [probably using their creative definitions], and student protests, cute catch phrases, calls to action, and all kinds of thing that have nothing to do with the story but everything to do with their "agenda spin":

[url]https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/great-mills-high-school-shooting/[/url] ([url]https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/great-mills-high-school-shooting/[/url])

Didn't bother with NYT/Washing Post, but I would expect the same thing.



So you want the news report to duplicate a very clinical police report, without any human interest or background stuff. Breitbart was terse as per your specifications, but apparently the Fox News report did not get the memo. Oops..... :)
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on March 20, 2018, 06:59:36 pm
So you want the news report to duplicate a very clinical police report, without any human interest or background stuff. Breitbart was terse as per your specifications, but apparently the Fox News report did not get the memo. Oops..... :)


It doesn't have to be terse and cold like Breitbart, but not swilling in emotional blather and agenda like CNN.  The Fox report stuck to facts and things involved in the incident.  It was informative, rational, and to the point... it is news.  The CNN report was quite the opposite.  My point in sharing was not just to highlight the fact that "it takes a good guy with a gun to stop a bad guy with a gun", which is absolutely true, but also to show just how severely slanted certain media is at "news."

You might find this interesting too- same FL school as one of the deadliest mass shootings in history, students just arrested for bringing in knives, pulling them on each other, all the while the "resource officer" was sleeping in his car.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20/stoneman-douglas-students-arrested-for-knives-deputy-suspended-for-sleeping-on-job.html (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/03/20/stoneman-douglas-students-arrested-for-knives-deputy-suspended-for-sleeping-on-job.html)

Of course, that isn't to be found on CNN at all, because it doesn't fit their agenda and narrative.  You won't find it on NYTimes either.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: VirginiaJim on March 21, 2018, 06:12:25 am
...and wtf is a 'resource' officer? Are they so PC they won't say cop or guard or armed hall monitor?


Sheriff's deputy and member of the local swat team.  You can call them whatever you want but this one didn't cower outside the building.  I think that they call them that here in VA as well.   What do they call them where you live Gary?  This incident occurred across the river (Potomac) and over to the east of me.   Unlike FL, this sh*thead (shooter) only had a Glock.   Now trying to figure out where he got it from.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on March 21, 2018, 06:17:45 am
Why call them a 'resource' officer? I don't understand the use of the word resource. None of these definitions fit. Is this newspeak?


resource
re·source
ˈrēˌsôrs,rəˈsôrs/Submit
noun
1.
a stock or supply of money, materials, staff, and other assets that can be drawn on by a person or organization in order to function effectively.
"local authorities complained that they lacked resources"
synonyms:   assets, funds, wealth, money, capital; More
2.
an action or strategy that may be adopted in adverse circumstances.
"sometimes anger is the only resource left in a situation like this"
synonyms:   expedient, resort, course, scheme, stratagem; More
verb
1.
provide (a person or organization) with materials, money, staff, and other assets necessary for effective operation.
"ensurin
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: VirginiaJim on March 21, 2018, 06:23:46 am
Interestingly, it's a Federal term...   First SRO was placed in a Flint Mich school in 1953.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_resource_officer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_resource_officer)


Another term is SBLE which is a State Based Law Enforcement officer which in the MD incident may be the correct term although SRO and SBLE are used interchangeably.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on March 21, 2018, 06:57:17 am
Imagine that. Thanks Jim.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Conniesaki on March 21, 2018, 12:54:46 pm
Resource Officer ... it's a term that sounds technical / official enough that most people won't question it when this new paid position has been added to the tax roll.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: VirginiaJim on March 21, 2018, 01:20:08 pm
If there is anything that I would pay extra taxes for, having an armed officer at a school would be at the top of the list.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on March 21, 2018, 01:25:30 pm
It may just be a nice way of saying a 'full time, monitoring police officer' that is more kid- friendly. Just a kind and gentle, positive spin on the situation I think.

Brian

Resource Officer ... it's a term that sounds technical / official enough that most people won't question it when this new paid position has been added to the tax roll.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on March 21, 2018, 04:36:03 pm
It may just be a nice way of saying a 'full time, monitoring police officer' that is more kid- friendly. Just a kind and gentle, positive spin on the situation I think.

I don't know.  Why just just "school officer"? Or "campus police"?  Or "SCO" (School Security Officer).  There are some many more suitable terms.  The word "resource" makes absolutely no sense in this context at all.  I just did a few minutes of searching and give up- nobody seems to know why that stupid term was selected.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on March 21, 2018, 04:40:17 pm
Interestingly, it's a Federal term...   First SRO was placed in a Flint Mich school in 1953.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_resource_officer (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_resource_officer)


Another term is SBLE which is a State Based Law Enforcement officer which in the MD incident may be the correct term although SRO and SBLE are used interchangeably.

I don't know.  Why just just "school officer"? Or "campus police"?  Or "SCO" (School Security Officer).  There are some many more suitable terms.  The word "resource" makes absolutely no sense in this context at all.  I just did a few minutes of searching and give up- nobody seems to know why that stupid term was selected.

Jim came though in the above post. Who knew.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on March 21, 2018, 05:03:19 pm
Jim came though in the above post. Who knew.

Well, I saw it was a "Federal term" and read the Wikipedia page before posting, but there is no explanation anywhere of the rationale behind their (Fed) choice of the word either.... at least not that I could find.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on May 18, 2018, 02:04:48 pm
Friday, 18 May 2018. Looks like another school shooting, in TX this time. Early info. is ten dead, ten wounded, suspect in custody and another person detained for questioning. Some sketchy info. about explosive device(s?) found at the school also.

Too bad no one rammed through 'assault weapon' legislation or magazine limitations, although the two firearms used in this shooting were a shotgun and a handgun.

As I said months ago, public schools could have been hardened, at least crudely but effectively, by now. But instead we prance around trying to outlaw a very small fraction of the 'tools' used in these events.

We have failed at the two steps in solving any problem. And on the first step too boot:

1) Identify the problem (not a symptom, not something that looks like it might be the problem but the actual problem).
2) Deal with the problem.

Not sure what is going on in the world but these mass attacks, apparently all over Europe and absolutely in the US are just outside my ability to rationally contemplate. Over population? A population continuously and seriously desensitized to.... well, everything, needing more and more outrageous acts to feel satisfied? The desire to stand out and 'be someone', even if that someone is Charles Manson or Ted Bundy?

I guess I am getting to old to adapt all the way to the new realities of life. Must be why we have to die, so younger people, better trained and immersed in the current world can move along with it. I have always had trouble understanding how far, and how fast 'road rage' can get out of control so the idea of 'school rage' or 'movie theater rage' is just beyond my comprehension.

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on May 18, 2018, 05:15:53 pm
Yep, this is sad, indeed.  Still not much useful info I can find online like the story with the resource officers- what was done or not and how he got shot.  Was the perp was on or taken off meds... very interested to know this one, since there are a LOT of theories that the meds being pumped into teenagers could very well be a huge contributor.

Otherwise, I do believe another major contributing factor is all the never-ending media coverage leading to "copy-cat" crimes.

And like you said, this totally destroys the whole "left's" obsession with AR15's.  So now the narrative will just shift to holding people responsible for unsecured weapons while we continue to not harden schools or really try to figure out what is going on with the actual problem- the killer students' minds, not the tools they used.  Oh, and they will totally ignore the "explosive devices", because those don't fit any narrative at all right now.

Tragic.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: gPink on May 18, 2018, 06:52:43 pm
Used to be these mentally deficient people would just off themselves with a gun under their chin. Shame they got away from that.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: Rubber_Snake on May 18, 2018, 09:49:09 pm
Yep, this is sad, indeed.  Still not much useful info I can find online like the story with the resource officers- what was done or not and how he got shot.  Was the perp was on or taken off meds... very interested to know this one, since there are a LOT of theories that the meds being pumped into teenagers could very well be a huge contributor.

Otherwise, I do believe another major contributing factor is all the never-ending media coverage leading to "copy-cat" crimes.

And like you said, this totally destroys the whole "left's" obsession with AR15's.  So now the narrative will just shift to holding people responsible for unsecured weapons while we continue to not harden schools or really try to figure out what is going on with the actual problem- the killer students' minds, not the tools they used.  Oh, and they will totally ignore the "explosive devices", because those don't fit any narrative at all right now.

Tragic.

I subscribe to the notion of the copycat theory.  The media over sensationalizes every event and just continues to front page everything about active shooters in schools.  It helps to plant the seeds in warped minds and gives more people the idea that they can do this to. 

That and a general moral decay that seems to happening globally...
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on May 19, 2018, 01:02:01 pm
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/bd745643-8045-30e3-b7de-035793d62bb4/ss_texas-lt.-governor-dan.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/bd745643-8045-30e3-b7de-035793d62bb4/ss_texas-lt.-governor-dan.html)

And now the Lt. Gov. of Texas has come up with the novel notion that larger schools have too many (unsecured) doors. DUH!

Dammit, harden public schools! Reduce the entrance points, and double- door them (with interlocks so two cannot be open at once), and use metal detectors for school entry! I just do not see 18 different ways to handle this problem or express the solution; limit access in public schools to metal objects that weigh more the XXX ounces and solve the majority of the problem of deadly assaults inside schools. This would also take care of <some> explosive devices, larger knives and so on. Honestly, I do NOT understand the resistance or failure to do this ASAP. ??

We live in an imperfect world, and I do not for one moment think this 'solution' will end all public school violence. But I cannot think of a faster, more effective way to do something that would be effective immediately to reduce these incidents.

One other thought: arrest the adult who actually owned the firearms used in this latest attack (the perpetrator is apparently 17 and was using his father's firearms) and charge his as an accessory to 10 murders. That <may> make others make more of an effort to restrict the access to their own firearms. I am pro 2A but not irresponsible; if you bring a 'gun to the party', you are responsible for that firearm. By 'party', it could even be a household. Owning / carrying firearms carries with it a most serious responsibility to retain those firearms and not allow them to 'get loose' to the best of one's abilities. This same thing would have almost certainly prevented Sandy Hook BTW, at least the way it played out in history.

Brian
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: maxtog on May 19, 2018, 01:23:43 pm
One other thought: arrest the adult who actually owned the firearms used in this latest attack (the perpetrator is apparently 17 and was using his father's firearms) and charge his as an accessory to 10 murders. That <may> make others make more of an effort to restrict the access to their own firearms. I am pro 2A but not irresponsible; if you bring a 'gun to the party', you are responsible for that firearm.

We don't know anything about HOW he obtained those guns yet (unless you know something I don't about it).  For all we know, they were locked and he defeated the security, similar to a robbery.  Would it just apply to minors?  Just to family?  People you know?  If a robber broke into my house and took my car, knife, locked gun, axe, rat poison, gasoline, etc and killed or hurt someone using one of them, is that my fault?  How much fault?  How "locked" or "secured" is enough?  If there is liability, could landlords then be liable too?  Would they start to restrict what renters could possess?   Would we have to carry additional insurance?  Would this require inspections?

Quote
Owning / carrying firearms carries with it a most serious responsibility to retain those firearms and not allow them to 'get loose' to the best of one's abilities.

I totally agree, but legislating that is very tricky.  Like I said in my previous posting, this will be the new narrative now...
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on May 19, 2018, 02:26:10 pm
A news report I read was that they were his father's firearms, legally obtained by the father.

How would I set limits of reasonable security? Well, starting with a gun safe (or a 'real' safe), and anyone having to defeat the safe to obtain the firearms would let the 'owner / possessor' off the hook. Letting a minor know the safe combination (ah la Sandy Hook apparently), would put the blame squarely back on the owner.

So let's say you have a firearm. If not in use, it should be in a 'safe' and anyone who takes it from that safe should have to cut his / her way into that safe. Family members who know the combination means to me that YOU, the firearms owner / legal possessor, "let" them have your firearms. And as such, you bear responsibility. Now, suppose you have a firearm on your person: someone should have to physically assault and overcome you to take possession of that firearm.

I think in reality, without a lot of written laws, we can determine the path that one takes to obtain a firearm and how difficult or available that path was. That would set the pace of the charges and trial, IMO. The law recognizes intent, and if your clear intent was to keep your firearms secure, you <should> be relatively safe from criminal and probably civil prosecution. That is what I would use for a standard.

If I were to have firearms, and I am not saying I do, but if I did, you would have to make substantial effort and risk 'life and limb' to maintain possession of them. I feel I bear a responsibility to the society I live in to be responsible with and for them, within reasonable bounds. 

As far as your litany of questions, all I can say is that I do not necessarily support more laws, such as securing firearms, but I do believe in responsibility. If one is going to bring a firearm to the proverbial 'party', then it is the responsibility of that individual to retain said firearm and not let it "loose" in any environment, at home or outside the home. I support one's right to carry a firearm in, say, a Walmart for personal defense but would not look kindly toward anyone who had a firearm 'slip away' at that same Walmart in any kind of confrontation or melee. The general field is called 'weapons retention' and I firmly believe if one chooses to posses a firearm, then one has fundamentally agreed to reasonable limits on retaining said firearm(s).

There is no need for any additional legislation IMO. All that is needed is for one person to be charged, to set precedent, and let a jury decide if that person was at fault, and possibly [how much] fault.

Brian

We don't know anything about HOW he obtained those guns yet (unless you know something I don't about it).  For all we know, they were locked and he defeated the security, similar to a robbery.  Would it just apply to minors?  Just to family?  People you know?  If a robber broke into my house and took my car, knife, locked gun, axe, rat poison, gasoline, etc and killed or hurt someone using one of them, is that my fault?  How much fault?  How "locked" or "secured" is enough?  If there is liability, could landlords then be liable too?  Would they start to restrict what renters could possess?   Would we have to carry additional insurance?  Would this require inspections?

I totally agree, but legislating that is very tricky.  Like I said in my previous posting, this will be the new narrative now...

Edited to add legislation thoughts.
Title: Re: 14 Feb 2018 FL school shooting
Post by: B.D.F. on May 20, 2018, 02:13:11 pm
https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/3fa34f9d-6d65-3a75-a1d4-df634676b234/ss_texas-shooting-suspect%26apos%3Bs.html (https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/3fa34f9d-6d65-3a75-a1d4-df634676b234/ss_texas-shooting-suspect%26apos%3Bs.html)

"Texas shooting suspect's choice of guns complicates debate over assault rifles"

Right. The firearms used were a shotgun (of unknown type but I am confident it was not a magazine- fed, "assault shotgun"  ::)  ) and a revolver. Not even a nasty, magazine- fed, 'high capacity' self loading pistol but a revolver. So now the anti gun folks have three choices:

1) Keep right after 'assault weapons' and ignore this.
2) Expand the 'ring' to include all firearms.
3) Continue pressing for an 'assault weapons' ban and claim that this is actually a 'good thing' because "only" ten people were killed, with an additional ten wounded.

No doubt they will continue along unabated about the 'assault weapons', or modern sporting rifles. The article in the link above does state that this could and <probably> would have been worse, or much worse, had an 'assault weapon' been used. Does that make this a 'good' event?

To all you folks who like to shoot skeet or trap and think none of this current debate has anything to do with you, think again. In fact, go look at the course of Australia's acceleration in the banning of firearms; that too started with semi- autos and a couple of other 'problematic' firearms. And then there was another mass shooting with sporting firearms, none of which were viewed as 'problematic' before, so they banned those too. Now, virtually all firearms are 'effectively' banned in Australia although it is possible for an individual to own and posses a firearm IF APPROVED, and after a lot of red tape and finally, if the law enforcement agencies think it good and wise that that individual have a firearm.

Brian