Customize

School shooting response

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by meep meep, Jun 5, 2014.

  1. Random guy Member

    I am an occasional hunter, and I share your fathers views.

    Even if I was looking for a gun for a home defence situation, I would avoid an assault rifle. Unless you believe you will be attacked by a rabid or very determined large gang, you don't need the 20-30 rounds of an assault rifle magazine. Usually, you will have a bit more than a split second to point your gun in the right direction too. There's also things like bullets going through walls and floors and hitting innocent bystanders to consider. I'd go for a shotgun. It will stop an assailant, but not necessarily kill, and hunting with it it will remain a gun you know and can use well.
    • Like Like x 3
  2. Random guy Member

    You know what round most elephants are killed with? It's not one of those big H&H or Express rounds, it's our old friend the 7,62 x 39 Kalashnikov...
    • Like Like x 3
  3. tinfoilhatter Member

    The gunnersmates on my ship recommended shotguns for several reasons for home defense. The biggest one, is the loud audible cocking noise. If you need glasses, they are great because you do not really have to aim.

    This will probably drive you guys crazy now:
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Ersatz Global Moderator

    There's been another school shooting. This one is in Oregon
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/10/us-usa-shooting-oregon-idUSKBN0EL1P320140610




  5. We've fucking gone collectively mad.
  6. Random guy Member

    • Like Like x 3
  7. I own only one gun, a shotgun ostensibly for 'home defense'. My husband insisted on it, but I think a lot could happen before we could get it out of the closet we stuffed it in after purchase (you can tell I'm very fearful of intruders and such...:rolleyes:). To make it worse, the shells are in a different closet, so it's really just around for that 'kachunk' sound it makes.
    • Like Like x 1
  8. 207

    wtf is going on

  9. Quentinanon Member

    Cuz the poachers who use them can only afford the ubiquitous, cheap used AKs. They employ multiple shots.
  10. White Tara Global Moderator

    • Like Like x 1
  11. White Tara Global Moderator

  12. anonysamvines Member

    Ah
    I get the reasoning put before me

    But speaking as someone who does not come from a don't you deny me my gun culture background

    The real problem is ALWAYS the NUT behind the gun
    And it's necessity for freedom in their mind
  13. Random guy Member


    Indeed.
  14. meep meep Member

    I agree about copycats I think the press should change the reporting and focus on the heroism of the victims and ppl that brought the guy down and stop pushing the mystery about who the shooter and why he did it. Change focus and police should change their advice about everyone hiding. Peole who can should jump the shooter- its the only thing that will stop him before more ppl die. Also teachers: pepper spray.
    • Like Like x 2
  15. meep meep Member

    We don't lose guns and the second amendment.The right to bear arms is so important it is the S
    econd amendment it is that basic to the US constitution. Its so important it was the second and not the tenth.
    • Like Like x 3
  16. Random guy Member

    It is a matter of interpretation.

    If you take the 2nd amendment to mean that everyone should have the right to whatever portable military guns, then you have nothing to protect you from madmen getting hold of grenades and assault rifles and shoot up schools every now and then. It's a nice principle (and one that made sense back in the 18th century), but the price you pay to extend it to modern times of auto loaders and high capacity magazines are school massacres.

    While you claim the amendment is important, it is not followed to the letter. Children won't be able to buy guns, and depending on state a whole range of problems can disqualify you from ownership. Different states also vary in what they understand by "gun". You can't buy assault rifles everywhere. The amendment obviously is subject to interpretation.

    Putting private sale under the same registration regime as buying guns over the counter would hardly be revolutionary, and possibly solve a whole lot of problems.

    If you want to be really assine about the 2nd amendment, it could be read as that every able man should have the military gun of the day, i.e. a Brown Bess or a Charleville. Apart from being kind of cool and the guns being entirely unsuited to massacres, it would also give the flagging US steel industry a badly needed boost.
    • Like Like x 3
  17. Sonichu Moderator

    I think if everyone had a revolver it might help even the playing field. Suitable for defense, but difficult to reload, with an unchageable magazine size.
  18. RavenEyes Member

    Yes. What irks me is the commenters in the article sections of the various news reports making fun of Wilcox for having his back exposed so that Amanda Miller was able to gun him down. Without know this person, they're saying he didn't have enough training, etc. He thought Jerad was a lone gunman.

    Well, to me. he's a hero no matter what training he did or he didn't have because he was willing to put his life on the line and DO SOMETHING to try to SAVE SOMEONE OTHER THAN HIMSELF. There's a good chance he did just that, too. Right after he was gunned down by that bitch, that sick Bonnie/Clyde couple got in a shootout with police. They did not aim at other random innocent customers or bystanders.Without Wilcox, we'll never know what would've happened.

    Gun in tow or not, would I have been as brave or not? I'm not sure. But, even his friend thought twice and decided not to try to stop him. The friend who was right there where we weren't. Bless Wilcox's heart.
    • Like Like x 4
  19. fishypants Moderator

    Toasters don't toast toast, people toast toast.

    (Only it's a lot more tricky without a toaster).
    • Like Like x 3
  20. anonysamvines Member

    None of us ever know till tested
    We can only hope we would act in x,y,z,way
    And hindsight, aka known as shoulda woulda coulda. Is so very easy from a place of safety
    • Like Like x 2
  21. Random guy Member

    Make that a single shot rifle (backloader) or a non-repeating shotgun (single or double) and I'm all with you.
    • Like Like x 2
  22. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    Pepper spray. The chance that I would hit someone with a gun are zero unless I took a stance, kept my finger off the trigger until the last minute and the guy had a target on his body. No head shots here. I considered a gun but frankly I'd be someone shot with my own..
  23. Sonichu Moderator

  24. tinfoilhatter Member

    • Like Like x 1
  25. Here's my two cents.

    Preventable_causes_of_death.png

    • Like Like x 3
  26. Random guy Member

    Nice graph!

    The problem is that gun deaths, particularly those that affect innocent 3rd parties (like in school shootings) are the ones that are most easily preventable through legislation. You can't really ban people from being fat, but you can restrict gun sale (I don't think anyone here has advocated a total ban). Compared to other first world countries, like those in Europe, the number of gun deaths in the US is ridiculously high.

    What the US could do though is to tighten up their car legislation. I find it hysterical that the US allows a raging hormonal 16 year old to drive around a ton of metal at fairly high speeds, while having sex, buying beer or voting is obviously too dangerous until you are quite a bot older. That, and tighten up the drunk driving laws.
    • Like Like x 2
  27. eh we'ere trying our best.
    And about the being fat thing mayor bloomburg of NY city tried that.
    The way we could prevent school shootings is by the following steps that should be taken at the gun store.

    1.background check
    2.mental evacuation
    3. a gun safety class that the individual has to take

    the video and the qraph that I posted explain the rest.

    ~Deo Vindice X
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Random guy Member

    This is basically what happens in other parts of the world, with the addendum that you need a valid license to buy any gun, even a 2nd hand one from a guy you know. You go to a gun show and see one you fancy, you apply for a permit at the police station (I believe you can do it on-line now, been a while since I bought one), and the seller hold onto your gun for you while you wait for the answer. If he's caught selling a gun without the buyer showing a valid permit, he's risking his business. The end result is the police has a record of who owns what gun-wise, similar to the car registry.

    I believe the records in the US may not be good enough to allow for such a system. The most obvious problem is state limits and criminal and hospital records not crossing that effectively.

    While I drooled over the Nagant, the video was kind of moronic, he was straw-manning and comparing apples and oranges a lot.
    • Like Like x 2
  29. Well at least you get my point.
    Also I wish I had one they are crazy expensive here in the US but I did see a M1 Grand for $500.
    Folks that say "Lets ban guns because guns kill." are incapable of aproching this argument with a sound mind.
    Why not ban cars they kill.

    When shit like this happens it makes responsible gun owners look bad I myself own qwite a few.
    I was taught to respect guns and to be responsible with them.
    • Dislike Dislike x 1
  30. Quentinanon Member

    I think you meant "mental evaluation"
    Mental evacuation is what scientology does.
    • Like Like x 3
  31. Random guy Member

    The main difference is the US economy would collapse overnight of cars were banned. Guns are a luxery, banning them will cost a couple og thousand people their jobs, but on the scale of national economy, private gun ownership doesn't matter much.
  32. Ops danm autocorrect!!
  33. But it's a right that my government shouldn't take away from the law abiding citizen.
    Do you think the government should take away our guns?
  34. Random guy Member

    You seem to confuse "can" with "should". I was merely pointing out that if it was a question whether to ban cars and ban guns in the US, the first would be instant political and economic suicide, the second only possible political suicide and merely a blip on the economic radar.

    As for what I think the government should or should not do about "our guns", the question is entirely irrelevant. I have zero influence in the matter, and even if I had, I believe you US fags need to fix your society in your own way.

    I do however see that not all Americans agree with your interpretation of the 2nd amendment, nor agree with the prominence it is given in some "patriotic" quarters, so that question is obviously a bit more complex than your question seem to indicate.
    • Like Like x 2
  35. fify
  36. anon8109 Member

    ITT gun pron
  37. Disambiguation Global Moderator

    • Like Like x 3
  38. The Wrong Guy Member

    Families of 2012 Connecticut shooting victims sue gunmaker | Reuters

    The families of nine people killed in an attack on a Newtown, Connecticut, elementary school in 2012 filed a wrongful-death lawsuit on Monday against the company that manufactured the gun used in the attack.

    The suit named gunmaker Bushmaster, a distributor and the local retailer that sold the weapon used by 20-year-old Adam Lanza to kill 20 first-graders and six educators in a Dec. 14, 2012, attack at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

    The lawsuit contends that the AR-15 rifle Lanza used in his attack was designed to be a military weapon, had "little utility" for civil purposes and thus should not have been in Lanza's hands.

    "There is one tragically predictable civilian activity in which the AR-15 reigns supreme: Mass shootings," the lawsuit said.

    Families of nine victims and a 10th person who was wounded filed the suit in Connecticut Superior Court in Bridgeport. The suit seeks unspecified monetary damages.

    Continued here:
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/15/us-usa-connecticut-shooting-idUSKBN0JT1QQ20141215
    • Like Like x 1
  39. Quentinanon Member

    Inconvenient facts omitted were that Adam was schizophrenic, his mother taught him how to shoot and gave him access to the rifle that she legally purchased. Ironically, she was his first victim.
    • Like Like x 1
  40. Darth Alor Member

    It means its little to no involvement in the shooting, as in it doesn't mean shit in the situation. Google the "mental disorder" known as Aspergers.

Share This Page

Customize Theme Colors

Close

Choose a color via Color picker or click the predefined style names!

Primary Color :

Secondary Color :
Predefined Skins