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.

Didn't the M14 have a 20 round magazine?

Yep!

 Xenomancers wrote:
where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians? This is specifically what I'm talking about - as this probably the best lie you can tell young men to get them to die for you.

That isn't how it works. You can't just grab a young man at random, and get him to die for you by promising him virgins in the afterlife, that would be stupid. You might have noticed that other extreme groups, such as Nazi's, also manage to recruit young men (skin heads and such), without any promise of virgins.

These ideologies don't choose people and trick them into doing stuff, the people choose the ideology. Most people just pick and choose the parts of their religion that suit them anyway. The kind of people who choose extremism are not characteristically religious adherents. Usually they are young men who are already angry and frustrated, looking for some way to externalize their failures, and feel important. Ideas like "99 Virgins" or "The master race" exist because these people need to feel that they are superior in some way. It is their way of telling themselves they are better than the people they hate, even though their real lives and achievements would suggest otherwise.

You can try blaming the religion, but the fact is, the vast majority of Muslims don't become extremists. So firstly it doesn't add up, and secondly it causes you to overlook more important factors that push people towards violent ideologies.

 Frazzled wrote:

Rapes and sexual assaults.

what?

Just the general disconnect from the same part of the population that claims that a plastic sign is ineffective at stopping gun violence because anybody who wants to kill you is just going to ignore the sign anyway, and which is now claiming that the only thing stopping the wholesale rape of our women and daughters is a plastic sign on the bathroom door.

Either "gun/penis free zones" work, or they don't.

I am okay with gun carrying being prohibited in places where alcohol is the majority of the business income, that's the way it is handled in Oklahoma.

 d-usa wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Rapes and sexual assaults.

what?

Just the general disconnect from the same part of the population that claims that a plastic sign is ineffective at stopping gun violence because anybody who wants to kill you is just going to ignore the sign anyway, and which is now claiming that the only thing stopping the wholesale rape of our women and daughters is a plastic sign on the bathroom door.

Either "gun/penis free zones" work, or they don't.

I am okay with gun carrying being prohibited in places where alcohol is the majority of the business income, that's the way it is handled in Oklahoma.

Well thats a bit of a separate thread (I think you know I agree with you on that).
The gun free thing is different in that these are known areas where time matters. Typically mass shootings stop when the shooter is confronted by police or an armed person-often the BG retreats and offs himself.

It's probably about the limit of capacity taking into account the need to hand load the magazine, the spring strength for returning the rounds to the mouth, and the weight and size of loaded magazines.

The Bren Gun had a 30 round magazine and it fed from above the gun so gravity helped.

Modern assault rifles firing lower calibre ammunition seem to have standardised on about 30 rounds.

Also, I believe reports indicated that an officer engaged the suspect pretty early in a gunfight, but still failed to stop the carnage overall.

I guess a good guy with a gun doesn't always stop a bad guy with a gun.

 Ouze wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.

This is a fun talking point, but there is no evidence that even a single mass shooting was selected upon the basis it was a gun free zone.

Atop that, the majority of mass shootings happen in venues where firearms are lawful to possess.

Finally, no mass shooting, ever, has been stopped by an armed civilian.

I think gun free zones are goofy but let's not forge a narrative.

That's not true.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/24/shooting-wellness-center/13113555/

http://www.denverpost.com/2012/04/22/2-die-in-shooting-outside-aurora-church/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/man-beheaded-co-worker-moore-oklahoma-workplace-attack-police-n212396

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

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

 CaulynDarr wrote:

In the sense that when you write laws you often create weird arbitrary distinction, yes. But, there's a reason that the US military doesn't equip the average soldier with M14s for combat anymore. The M-16 is a more efficient battlefield weapon. Yes I know the AR-15 isn't exactly the same as the M-16, but it's close enough especially if you throw on enough aftermarket modification.

Wrong again, the move away from the M14 had nothing to do with M-16s being 'a more efficient battlefield weapon' and everything to do with the logistics of keeping a troop supplied with a basic load of ammo. 5.56 is lighter and you get a lot more rounds for the volume and weight. When it comes to transporting supplies, especially by air/rotary wing as we were doing in Vietnam, but even by ground transport, that statrs to make a difference. When you have to hump the weight, a basic load of 5.56 gives you more shots than the basic load of 7.62 did.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.

This is a fun talking point, but there is no evidence that even a single mass shooting was selected upon the basis it was a gun free zone.

Atop that, the majority of mass shootings happen in venues where firearms are lawful to possess.

Finally, no mass shooting, ever, has been stopped by an armed civilian.

I think gun free zones are goofy but let's not forge a narrative.

That's not true.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/24/shooting-wellness-center/13113555/

http://www.denverpost.com/2012/04/22/2-die-in-shooting-outside-aurora-church/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/man-beheaded-co-worker-moore-oklahoma-workplace-attack-police-n212396

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

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

According to the sources, only 1 of those was stopped by a civilian. 1 was on-duty police, 1 was a guard, 2 were off duty-cops (not civilians), and 1 was a suicide, with no civilian opening fire.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's worth mentioning that Islam teaches that martyrdom while killing infidels grants you multiple virgins in paradise. This might be a great place to start.

No it isn't worth mentioning, as it has very little to do with why young men become radicals. The only reason you might bring it up, at all, is if you were some kind of reactionary bigot trying to demonize a religion that you know nothing about, in a situation that you clearly have a very limited understanding of. The bible also has violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals, but it has very little to do with what actually makes people turn violent.

Sorry for my limited understanding but where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians? This is specifically what I'm talking about - as this probably the best lie you can tell young men to get them to die for you. I am an atheist BTW and am pretty much opposed to all religions but Islam is an especially messed up religion that actually commands violence on others and offers you a reward for it.

You're either moving the goalposts or making a strawman. Either way you're not doing yourself any favours.

Actually I did nothing of the sort. I put forth an argument that Islamic's kill infidels because their holy book grants them virgins in heaven for doing so (their holy book actually says this). I was then called an ignorant bigot and some sort of contrast was made between Islam and Christianity that didn't address the point I was making. I restated my point by asking a question that still hasn't been addressed. Now another has stepped in an claimed I'm making a logical fallacy.

Smacks said that:

 Smacks wrote:
The bible also has violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals, but it has very little to do with what actually makes people turn violent.

You responded with:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry for my limited understanding but where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians?

The claim was never that the Bible contains such passages, only that it contains "violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals". Responding to that with a request for something that has never been claimed is a Strawman, demanding such examples to accept the similarity between Islam and Christianity on this point is moving the goalposts. Either way it's a logical fallacy.

The point I was making was that the bible does not contain passages that promise virgins in paradise for martyrdom and is therefore insufficient as a comparison. The bible might be homophobic but it is generally not commanding holywar or promising virgins for your self sacrifice. Both religions are morally reprehensible but it should be clear to anyone which is more likely to induce suicide killings.

Prestor Jon wrote:
...

That's not true.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/24/shooting-wellness-center/13113555/

http://www.denverpost.com/2012/04/22/2-die-in-shooting-outside-aurora-church/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/man-beheaded-co-worker-moore-oklahoma-workplace-attack-police-n212396

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

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

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/24/shooting-wellness-center/13113555/
Gunman was stopped and arrested by unarmed civilians after having been shot by his victim.

http://www.denverpost.com/2012/04/22/2-die-in-shooting-outside-aurora-church/
Gunman was shot by an off-duty policeman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings
Coroner says gunman committed suicide. A civilian claims to have shot him.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/man-beheaded-co-worker-moore-oklahoma-workplace-attack-police-n212396
Gunman shot by a civilian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting
Gunman committed suicide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting
Gunman shot by police.

While this refutes the 100% failure record, it's not a highly convincing argument for the efficacy of armed civilians in stopping mass shootings.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/man-beheaded-co-worker-moore-oklahoma-workplace-attack-police-n212396
Gunman shot by a civilian.

Actually, in that one the gunman wasn't a gunman, he only had a knife. Easier to fight/escape a man with a knife than a man with an AR 15, so probably not relevant.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
...

That's not true.

Spoiler:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/24/shooting-wellness-center/13113555/

http://www.denverpost.com/2012/04/22/2-die-in-shooting-outside-aurora-church/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/man-beheaded-co-worker-moore-oklahoma-workplace-attack-police-n212396

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

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

Spoiler:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/07/24/shooting-wellness-center/13113555/
Gunman was stopped and arrested by unarmed civilians after having been shot by his victim.

http://www.denverpost.com/2012/04/22/2-die-in-shooting-outside-aurora-church/
Gunman was shot by an off-duty policeman.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Colorado_YWAM_and_New_Life_shootings
Coroner says gunman committed suicide. A civilian claims to have shot him.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/crime-courts/man-beheaded-co-worker-moore-oklahoma-workplace-attack-police-n212396
Gunman shot by a civilian.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clackamas_Town_Center_shooting
Gunman committed suicide.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_Square_shooting
Gunman shot by police.

While this refutes the 100% failure record, it's not a highly convincing argument for the efficacy of armed civilians in stopping mass shootings.

Here is a Washington Post story about the subject.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/10/03/do-civilians-with-guns-ever-stop-mass-shootings/

The author provides ten examples with a comment at the end on his choice of terms citizens vs. civilians.

Well, quibbling about the number is moving the goalposts - I was wrong when I said no civilian ever stopped a mass shooting. I forgot about that Uber driver thing pretty recently, and that alone was enough to make me wrong.

It doesn't change my beliefs that you can't functionally stop a mass shooting event, either from restricting gun ownership or from arming the population any further. There is no political will on one hand, and a lack of efficacy on the other (not to mention that a hypothetical massive increase in people carrying guns will likely result in more incidental deaths than the mass shootings the goal is to stop).

I don't really know what the answer is, but it's not either of those things.

Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.

Yes, the important thing is the rate of mass shootings per year and the comparative rate of defence against such by civilians.

Of course people also carry guns to defend against individual crime, so it's not just about stopping mass shootings.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.

There aren't a ton of people walking around with weapons on a military base in peacetime in the US. Soldiers here do not carry sidearms as a matter of course. The closest armed personnel are probably security guards at the gates, same as any large office complex.

 Ouze wrote:
Well, quibbling about the number is moving the goalposts - I was wrong when I said no civilian ever stopped a mass shooting. I forgot about that Uber driver thing pretty recently, and that alone was enough to make me wrong.

It doesn't change my beliefs that you can't functionally stop a mass shooting event, either from restricting gun ownership or from arming the population any further. There is no political will on one hand, and a lack of efficacy on the other (not to mention that a hypothetical massive increase in people carrying guns will likely result in more incidental deaths than the mass shootings the goal is to stop).

I don't really know what the answer is, but it's not either of those things.

Civilians successfully intervening seems to be the exception, rather than the norm. That's my conclusion from these articles.

Yes, it's a few times in hundreds of events. Which again, I was still wrong when I said it never happened.

 Ouze wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.

There aren't a ton of people walking around with weapons on a military base in peacetime in the US. Soldiers here do not carry sidearms as a matter of course. The closest armed personnel are probably security guards at the gates, same as any large office complex.

I thought you guys were on high alert at sensitive areas and military bases, because of 9/11, the ISIL threat, and so on...

The incident at the military base involved a serving officer who suddenly started to shoot people.

it's hard to know if this could have been anticipated.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure only the MPs walk around a military base actually carrying a weapon. Which would mean that even on an army base, the majority of the targets would be unarmed from the shooter's perspective.

A better example would likely be the three idiots that tried to shoot up a police station. Even then, there are plenty of unarmed staff and civilians at a police station.

Someone suddenly opening fire is a chaotic situation. Even for trained soldiers/police officers, reactions take time, and sadly that time is usually where most victims lose their lives.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, the important thing is the rate of mass shootings per year and the comparative rate of defence against such by civilians.

Of course people also carry guns to defend against individual crime, so it's not just about stopping mass shootings.

I think that's the best anyone can say about it. I'd be quite interested to hear from anyone who actually worked as club bouncer, on how they'd feel about letting patrons in with guns. My suspicion, based on the number of drunken fights I've seen outside clubs, is that letting people in with guns would cause more problems than it solves. The chance of a terror attack is quite small, compared to the probability of someone having too much to drink and acting like a douche, which is almost a certainty.

Even in the US most people don't go about in a state of combat vigilance for the reason that, while shootings are much more common than in Europe, they still are very uncommon.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.

It's against regulations to carry personal arms while on base. The soldiers that Hassan shot were all unarmed.

 Smacks wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, the important thing is the rate of mass shootings per year and the comparative rate of defence against such by civilians.

Of course people also carry guns to defend against individual crime, so it's not just about stopping mass shootings.

I think that's the best anyone can say about it. I'd be quite interested to hear from anyone who actually worked as club bouncer, on how they'd feel about letting patrons in with guns. My suspicion, based on the number of drunken fights I've seen outside clubs, is that letting people in with guns would cause more problems than it solves. The chance of a terror attack is quite small, compared to the probability of someone having too much to drink and acting like a douche, which is almost a certainty.

Most crimes are fuelled by alcohol, so guns + booze is never a good idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.

It's against regulations to carry personal arms while on base. The soldiers that Hassan shot were all unarmed.

Is that just for US based bases? I'd assume that the opposite was the case for a US base in Iraq.

 Smacks wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Yes, the important thing is the rate of mass shootings per year and the comparative rate of defence against such by civilians.

Of course people also carry guns to defend against individual crime, so it's not just about stopping mass shootings.

I think that's the best anyone can say about it. I'd be quite interested to hear from anyone who actually worked as club bouncer, on how they'd feel about letting patrons in with guns. My suspicion, based on the number of drunken fights I've seen outside clubs, is that letting people in with guns would cause more problems than it solves. The chance of a terror attack is quite small, compared to the probability of someone having too much to drink and acting like a douche, which is almost a certainty.

Yeah.. guns and alcohol dont mix.

but as much as i would like every bar and club to have metal detectors and Disneyland bag checks, i dont think its financially possible.
Otherwise training security to do such and pay them more.

(im fine with people owning guns all day everyday. just not free to carry it anywhere they want. especially in specific types of places like a super packed low light room full of people)

 streamdragon wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure only the MPs walk around a military base actually carrying a weapon. Which would mean that even on an army base, the majority of the targets would be unarmed from the shooter's perspective.

A better example would likely be the three idiots that tried to shoot up a police station. Even then, there are plenty of unarmed staff and civilians at a police station.

Someone suddenly opening fire is a chaotic situation. Even for trained soldiers/police officers, reactions take time, and sadly that time is usually where most victims lose their lives.

Your last sentence is a point I was making in another thread. Even a highly trained shooter would struggle to hit a target if there's tons of innocent civilians running through his or her line of fire.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Remember that shooting at the army base? That was the complete opposite of a gun free zone, so even in an area where there's a ton of weapons, there's no guarantee against gun attacks, sadly.

No. Hassan specifically chose the location because no one had their weapons there.