Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Usually the gun will just jump back, but it's not challenging the physics of the known universe just to think on that particular occasion the gun turned back and discharged. If that sort of thing does result in blowing your brains out then they won't be on the funny youtube videos.

It requires zero resistance to the recoil, as in, "I will not even be holding the gun up any longer as soon as I squeeze the trigger," which is...well, clearly possible, but just such a foreign concept I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around it, even seeing it.

However mysterious the supposed 'physics' of the incident it clearly happened, the main issue though, is that an uzi was given to a child to fire and neither the parent nor the person supplying the gun thought it unwise. That's what should be questioned, not whether the laws of physics had to be bent for it to happen.

The person supplying the gun was fifteen years old, and this whole thing was apparently being run by a former police chief.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Having actually read his post I don't think he actually said that.

Then I have no idea who he's referring to, as I'm unable to find a statement from any of the major gun rights lobbies puzzling over the physics involved.

edited.

On the subject of arming teachers, keeping it in a desk is actually perfectly valid. Biolocked safes are a thing, stick that in a drawer, stick the gun in that before the kids get there for the day, say no more about it.

Unless the children are going to start a mass rebellion to hold the teacher down and force her finger tips on the unlock plate they aren't getting that sidearm, and if they are then we need to be talking about hiring prison guards to start handling American educational facilities with a proper dosage of taser and truncheons admitted to each hooliga... err student.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Usually the gun will just jump back, but it's not challenging the physics of the known universe just to think on that particular occasion the gun turned back and discharged. If that sort of thing does result in blowing your brains out then they won't be on the funny youtube videos.

It requires zero resistance to the recoil, as in, "I will not even be holding the gun up any longer as soon as I squeeze the trigger," which is...well, clearly possible, but just such a foreign concept I'm still having a hard time wrapping my head around it, even seeing it.

At that level of recoil "resistance" I'd find it far more likely that the gun would be on the deck, not against someone's skull.

 Ouze wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
More people were killed by hammers or bears last year than what they call "assault rifles," while tens of thousands were killed by handguns, but what are they pushing for? A ban on "assault rifles."

Should have gone with bees instead of bears. Bears have killed less then 10 people in the last 3 years, whereas an AR-15 has killed at least 28 people in the last 3 months.

Oops, make that 33 now. A teenager just exercised his 2nd amendment rights with an AR-15 on 2 adults and 3 children this morning.

We should also get to work on outlawing alcohol since 30 people a day are killed by drunk drivers:

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

I accidentally my 2nd Amendment.

Relapse wrote:
We should also get to work on outlawing alcohol since 30 people a day are killed by drunk drivers:

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

Without legislation to curtail that behavior that number would be triple according to the steadily declining rates of people being killed by such incidents. There is no reason we can't make steady decreases in the number of firearm related deaths as well through reasonable, considered legislation either.

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
We should also get to work on outlawing alcohol since 30 people a day are killed by drunk drivers:

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

Without legislation to curtail that behavior that number would be triple according to the steadily declining rates of people being killed by such incidents. There is no reason we can't make steady decreases in the number of firearm related deaths as well through reasonable, considered legislation either.

We already have steadily declining rates of violent crime in the US. Significantly so.

I say we limit the number of drinks a person has in a month coupled with a background check on their mental state and if they have been convicted of drunk driving offenses in the past.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Ahtman wrote:

Relapse wrote:
We should also get to work on outlawing alcohol since 30 people a day are killed by drunk drivers:

http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html

Without legislation to curtail that behavior that number would be triple according to the steadily declining rates of people being killed by such incidents. There is no reason we can't make steady decreases in the number of firearm related deaths as well through reasonable, considered legislation either.

We already have steadily declining rates of violent crime in the US. Significantly so.

'Crime' encompasses far more things then just firearms, and doesn't take into account no criminal firearm injuries or fatalities either. I suppose it would be simpler to conflate the two, but it won't solve any problems. The other problem is that saying 'things are great, we shouldn't do anything' rarely works. Crime, as a generic term, is going down for a number of factors, including being pro-active legally on different issues.

 Seaward wrote:

I disagree, simply because the NRA has been doing it for a very long time, and remain influential.

I don't think you understand how badly they've messed up the perception of gun rights advocates.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

I disagree, simply because the NRA has been doing it for a very long time, and remain influential.

I don't think you understand how badly they've messed up the perception of gun rights advocates.

That's true... the recent NRA activities are simply baffling from a PR perspective.

 Cheesecat wrote:
You know the government showing involvement with policies that could help reduce gun related crimes doesn't just mean strict gun laws, it could mean a criminal justice system that emphasizes rehabilitation over punishment, policies that make education more accessible to poorer

families, policies that increase social mobility for the poor, better services for the people with mental or physical disabilities, more in depth requirements for gun licenses (certain medical and mental conditions should prohibit you from using firearms), criminal background checks for

gun licenses, etc.

Indeed. There's a whole list of things that the government COULD try... and yet they always seem to reach for the one tool that has been proven NOT to do the job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kanluwen wrote:
They're using the whole thing as a way to divert from the issue at hand; which is that better firearms regulation could potentially play into preventing these kinds of events from happening again.
As continually gets pointed out time and time again, most of these shootings are not being performed by criminals. Most of these shootings are being performed by people who are legally able to obtain guns.

Oh, and by the way:
Where is the money for more SROs going to come from?

No. Some, I'll grant you (the Aurora theater shooting comes to mind). But not most. For example :

The kid who shot up Sandy Hook was too young to own a gun, period. He killed his mother so he could steal her guns. He did not posess those guns legally.

Let's go back to the first one - Columbine. Again, those two kids were too young to own guns. The guns were stolen from a grandfather. Again, they did not posess those guns legally.

We can go back and repeat this ad infinitum if you wish.

 Vulcan wrote:
[

 Kanluwen wrote:
They're using the whole thing as a way to divert from the issue at hand; which is that better firearms regulation could potentially play into preventing these kinds of events from happening again.
As continually gets pointed out time and time again, most of these shootings are not being performed by criminals. Most of these shootings are being performed by people who are legally able to obtain guns.

Oh, and by the way:
Where is the money for more SROs going to come from?

No. Some, I'll grant you (the Aurora theater shooting comes to mind). But not most. For example :

The kid who shot up Sandy Hook was too young to own a gun, period. He killed his mother so he could steal her guns. He did not possess those guns legally.

The "kid who shot up Sandy Hook" was not that young. He was 20 years old, which is old enough in many areas to buy and own a rifle.
He was also taken to the range quite often with the mother.

Let's go back to the first one - Columbine. Again, those two kids were too young to own guns. The guns were stolen from a grandfather. Again, they did not posess those guns legally.

We can go back and repeat this ad infinitum if you wish.

And in each case, we find someone who was raised around guns and "responsible" gun owners.

 dogma wrote:

 Grey Templar wrote:

That comparison is rather weak. It implies that the very presence of a gun makes you more likely to kill someone, which is demonstrably false.

No, it implies that the presence of means of violence makes me more likely to use violence, especially if that means is efficient.

 Grey Templar wrote:

The presense of a power saw doesn't make me inclined to saw wood. The presense of an oven in my kitchen doesn't make me any more likely to cook something.

Of course it does, you have one of the tools necessary to cook something. Therefore you are more likely to cook if you have an oven, than if you do not have one.

So... if we ban the #1 weapon most often used in homicides, there will be fewer homicides?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Seaward wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I want a comprehensive mix that approaches the problem from multiple angles without sticking our fingers in our ears every time gun laws are mentioned while going "lalalalala not going to work lalalalala"

The problem with that is that we have ten years' worth of proof that the laws being proposed - at least the ones that I have problems with - do not, in fact, work.

I'm sorry if that bothers you, but it doesn't make your position any more credible.

More than ten years.

No area that has banned guns in America has EVER seen a significant decrease in the rate of gun crimes. This is demontrated in black and white in the FBI's crime reports. LA, Chicago, and NYC are all - theorectially - gun-free-zones, yet have some of the highest gun crime rates in the country - just like they did before guns were banned.

So if anyone is sticking their fingers in their ears and going lalalalala, it's the ones insisting that THIS TIME a gun ban will work... in spite of OVERWHELMING evidence to the contrary.

The NRA needs to start hammering this point home. It's not about 2nd Amendment rights, it's about finding a solution that will ACTUALLY solve the problem.

 Kanluwen wrote:

And in each case, we find someone who was raised around guns and "responsible" gun owners.

In many cases where drunk drivers have killed people it has also been found out that they were raised around"responsible" drinkers. This is why I say we control alcohol just the way guns and who can get them are being proposed to be controlled by the anti gun crowd. Only by doing this will we prevent people from being killed on our nation's highways.

Relapse wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And in each case, we find someone who was raised around guns and "responsible" gun owners.

In many cases where drunk drivers have killed people it has also been found out that they were raised around"responsible" drinkers. This is why I say we control alcohol just the way guns and who can get them are being proposed to be controlled by the anti gun crowd. Only by doing this will we prevent people from being killed on our nation's highways.

You see this?

This is a "strawman".

 Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And in each case, we find someone who was raised around guns and "responsible" gun owners.

In many cases where drunk drivers have killed people it has also been found out that they were raised around"responsible" drinkers. This is why I say we control alcohol just the way guns and who can get them are being proposed to be controlled by the anti gun crowd. Only by doing this will we prevent people from being killed on our nation's highways.

You see this?

This is a "strawman".

Not really, since it encompasses the same logic that is being used against guns. The only difference is what is being put on the spot. Otherwise as many or more people are killed by drunk drivers than criminals with guns.

Relapse wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And in each case, we find someone who was raised around guns and "responsible" gun owners.

In many cases where drunk drivers have killed people it has also been found out that they were raised around"responsible" drinkers. This is why I say we control alcohol just the way guns and who can get them are being proposed to be controlled by the anti gun crowd. Only by doing this will we prevent people from being killed on our nation's highways.

You see this?

This is a "strawman".

Not really, since it encompasses the same logic that is being used against guns. The only difference is what is being put on the spot. Otherwise as many or more people are killed by drunk drivers than criminals with guns.

I don't think you quite understand what you're talking about. It's okay though.

Of course you have more people killed by drunk drivers than criminals with guns. You have more people driving, and you have a varying threshold of what counts as "drunk driving". In some instances, any alcohol in your system while driving is "drunk driving".

Oh and way to throw in another strawman. We're not discussing "criminals with guns" killing people. We're discussing law abiding citizens who are able to legally obtain guns who then proceed to engage in mass shootings.

They're not "criminals" until after the shootings have already happened.

 Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

Relapse wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

And in each case, we find someone who was raised around guns and "responsible" gun owners.

In many cases where drunk drivers have killed people it has also been found out that they were raised around"responsible" drinkers. This is why I say we control alcohol just the way guns and who can get them are being proposed to be controlled by the anti gun crowd. Only by doing this will we prevent people from being killed on our nation's highways.

You see this?

This is a "strawman".

Not really, since it encompasses the same logic that is being used against guns. The only difference is what is being put on the spot. Otherwise as many or more people are killed by drunk drivers than criminals with guns.

I don't think you quite understand what you're talking about. It's okay though.

Of course you have more people killed by drunk drivers than criminals with guns. You have more people driving, and you have a varying threshold of what counts as "drunk driving". In some instances, any alcohol in your system while driving is "drunk driving".

Oh and way to throw in another strawman. We're not discussing "criminals with guns" killing people. We're discussing law abiding citizens who are able to legally obtain guns who then proceed to engage in mass shootings.

They're not "criminals" until after the shootings have already happened.

A lot of people that buy alcohol are law abiding citizens until they become drunk drivers and kill people, such as the guy that ran his pickup into a bus and burned 27 children to death.

You understand the difference between "negligence" and "malicious intent" right?

Drunk driving= negligence
Buying/acquiring a gun with the purpose of shooting up a school or other public gathering place= malicious intent

Does the motive mitigate the end result? I consider drunk driving a pretty sociopathic thing to do with the potential risks involved.

In Amorica do you legally have to keep your guns in a gunsafe? You have to here , i think it would go a long way to stopping kids stealing guns if you did.

I keep mine in a safe.

I would take stronger measures if I knew someone who was mentally ill was living in my house.

 Kanluwen wrote:
You understand the difference between "negligence" and "malicious intent" right?

Drunk driving= negligence
Buying/acquiring a gun with the purpose of shooting up a school or other public gathering place= malicious intent

I've had this same conversation with alcoholics who tried to justify their drunk driving. They know what the consequences are for their actions, the same as a shooter does. The end result is the same when dealing with both types, people end up dead or maimed.

Bullockist wrote:
In Amorica do you legally have to keep your guns in a gunsafe? You have to here , i think it would go a long way to stopping kids stealing guns if you did.

No such requirements here in the states that I know of... unless DC or New York has such requirements?

The questions till remains, why in the ol' U.S of A do these kind of massacres happen so frequently.

I don't think many other countries would compare on a per capita basis (maybe mexico) especially when it is a private individual doing the massacreing (not a govt.).

Why does it happen so often, and why is it that the response to people trying to do something about it "because the govt would DO THE TYRANNY". FFs that's a weak excuse.

Bullockist wrote:
The questions till remains, why in the ol' U.S of A do these kind of massacres happen so frequently.

I don't think many other countries would compare on a per capita basis (maybe mexico) especially when it is a private individual doing the massacreing (not a govt.).

Why does it happen so often, and why is it that the response to people trying to do something about it "because the govt would DO THE TYRANNY". FFs that's a weak excuse.

"So Often"?

o.O

is it one a year on average? or two?

We haven't had a massacre here in aus since 1996 .

So yes, i say often.

Bullockist wrote:
is it one a year on average? or two?

We haven't had a massacre here in aus since 1996 .

So yes, i say often.

You mean school massacre or multiple murders?