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.

Just watched the NRA speech, he seemed to be covering a lot of points brought up vigorously in the 90's about how it's the medias fault. Not a widespread and engrained gun culture.

My thoughts when they were talking
NSFW

Please don't embed vids with words we don't allow on the site. Thanks. Reds8n

Yeah though sensationalizing these shooters is a valid concern.

the Shield program sounds really interesting.

In other news online weapons parts and ammo distributor Brownell's has received orders equivalent to 3.5 YEARS worth of demand for the popular Magpul "P-mag" for the AR-15 in the last couple days

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yeah though sensationalizing these shooters is a valid concern.

No it isn't. It is shoveling the blame off on someone else. It is no different than the statement of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

It is taking part of the problem, the part that appeals to you, and defending it without considering the rest of the circumstances.

the Shield program sounds really interesting.

While it sounds interesting, the entire press conference is a farce.
Rather than actually comment on the issues, he continually blamed the media and politicians for "demonizing guns" and kept pushing for the "armed guards in every school". He also made a statement which made me laugh quite hard in "Can't we put a police officer in every single school?".

The majority of elementary, middle, and high schools already have an armed police presence in the form of a school resource officer.
How much good does that do in these kind of instances?

I know for a fact that the college I go to has armed police proportional to the number of students.

In other news online weapons parts and ammo distributor Brownell's has received orders equivalent to 3.5 YEARS worth of demand for the popular Magpul "P-mag" for the AR-15 in the last couple days

Gasp!

People buy things up in response to scaremongering? Say it ain't so!
It happens all the time. We see the same thing happen when the "leaked" new prices for GW come out.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yeah though sensationalizing these shooters is a valid concern.

No it isn't. It is shoveling the blame off on someone else. It is no different than the statement of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

It is taking part of the problem, the part that appeals to you, and defending it without considering the rest of the circumstances.

Of couse, they could both be concerns.

I do think that if you researched this a bit you'd see that the "infamy" these school shooters get could contribute to these incidents occurring.

 Monster Rain wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yeah though sensationalizing these shooters is a valid concern.

No it isn't. It is shoveling the blame off on someone else. It is no different than the statement of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

It is taking part of the problem, the part that appeals to you, and defending it without considering the rest of the circumstances.

Of couse, they could both be concerns.

I do think that if you researched this a bit you'd see that the "infamy" these school shooters get could contribute to these incidents occurring.

I don't need to. I've already made that statement.

And FYI? It does not apply simply to "school shooters". It applies to these mass shootings in general.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yeah though sensationalizing these shooters is a valid concern.

No it isn't. It is shoveling the blame off on someone else. It is no different than the statement of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

It is taking part of the problem, the part that appeals to you, and defending it without considering the rest of the circumstances.

So taking a minority problem with low percentages of occurring, blowing it up with scaremongering and made up words, not to mention giving the shooter the infamy/notoriety couldn't possibly have a negative side effect? I'm not saying it's the only concern, or the sole problem. I'm saying it is one of several. Thanks for putting words in my mouth though. Next time, I'll just let you do all the talking for both of us since you're clearly psychic.

the Shield program sounds really interesting.

While it sounds interesting, the entire press conference is a farce.
Rather than actually comment on the issues, he continually blamed the media and politicians for "demonizing guns" and kept pushing for the "armed guards in every school". He also made a statement which made me laugh quite hard in "Can't we put a police officer in every single school?".

The majority of elementary, middle, and high schools already have an armed police presence in the form of a school resource officer.
How much good does that do in these kind of instances?


I know for a fact that the college I go to has armed police proportional to the number of students.

Sandy Hook seemed short of an SRO, so we don't seem to have much data now do we? Also last I checked most colleges are rather large compared to the average elementary school, and the residents in more need of actual policing then grade schoolers (Except that paste eating ring in Mrs Anderson's 4th Grade class gotta take them down)

In other news online weapons parts and ammo distributor Brownell's has received orders equivalent to 3.5 YEARS worth of demand for the popular Magpul "P-mag" for the AR-15 in the last couple days

Gasp!

People buy things up in response to scaremongering? Say it ain't so!
It happens all the time. We see the same thing happen when the "leaked" new prices for GW come out.

 Kanluwen wrote:

I don't need to. I've already made that statement..

I guess I don't understand why you dismissed it when K.M. said it, then.

 Kanluwen wrote:
And FYI? It does not apply simply to "school shooters". It applies to these mass shootings in general.

The point of this distinction is what, exactly? We're talking about a school shooting right now.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Yeah though sensationalizing these shooters is a valid concern.

No it isn't. It is shoveling the blame off on someone else. It is no different than the statement of "Guns don't kill people, people kill people".

It is taking part of the problem, the part that appeals to you, and defending it without considering the rest of the circumstances.

So taking a minority problem with low percentages of occurring, blowing it up with scaremongering and made up words, not to mention giving the shooter the infamy/notoriety couldn't possibly have a negative side effect? I'm not saying it's the only concern, or the sole problem. I'm saying it is one of several. Thanks for putting words in my mouth though. Next time, I'll just let you do all the talking for both of us since you're clearly psychic.

the Shield program sounds really interesting.

While it sounds interesting, the entire press conference is a farce.
Rather than actually comment on the issues, he continually blamed the media and politicians for "demonizing guns" and kept pushing for the "armed guards in every school". He also made a statement which made me laugh quite hard in "Can't we put a police officer in every single school?".

The majority of elementary, middle, and high schools already have an armed police presence in the form of a school resource officer.
How much good does that do in these kind of instances?


I know for a fact that the college I go to has armed police proportional to the number of students.

Sandy Hook seemed short of an SRO, so we don't seem to have much data now do we? Also last I checked most colleges are rather large compared to the average elementary school, and the residents in more need of actual policing then grade schoolers (Except that paste eating ring in Mrs Anderson's 4th Grade class gotta take them down)

In other news online weapons parts and ammo distributor Brownell's has received orders equivalent to 3.5 YEARS worth of demand for the popular Magpul "P-mag" for the AR-15 in the last couple days

Gasp!

People buy things up in response to scaremongering? Say it ain't so!
It happens all the time. We see the same thing happen when the "leaked" new prices for GW come out.

Yes thank you, it's not surprising, just interesting for scale's sake. Now run along.

...this is actually an excellent point Frazzled. I'm going to go make better use of my time and play with the new Dachshund puppies at the pet store.

Thanks for reminding me why it is useless debating with the pro-gun crowd.

ANYTHING is "too restrictive".

That's an innaccurate generalization.

There are examples to the contrary in this very thread.

As to the noteriety and fame aspect of the "sensationalizing" of these shooters, I believe the great poet of the people Marshal Mathers said it best:

Eminem wrote:See what these kids do is hear about us totin' pistols
And they want to get one cause they think the gak's cool

It works along the same lines. If people laud a person's name over and over, or they're under constant media scrutiny, there is a chance that messed up people are going to think, "Wow, look at this kid from Connecticut, he's like totally famous." You don't see it as a valid concern because you're not the type of person that just wants to be known.

Look back to the "major" attacks in this country. Shootings like Columbine, Aurora, Oregon, Virginia Tech, Luby's Massacre (I don't know this because I was young when it happened). Look at the OKC bombing as well... Who do we remember about these events? The victims? the emergency responders that helped after the events, or the people that committed the attack?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
...this is actually an excellent point Frazzled. I'm going to go make better use of my time and play with the new Dachshund puppies at the pet store.

WOOF WOOF.

Did I mention the neighbor in the office next to me, now has six? He has three that are theirs, and they are fostering three as well. He sent a picture of 4 on the sofa. Wow.

 Seaward wrote:

Are you certain?

Frankly, situational awareness and the Cooper scale have been taught in more than one civilian class I've attended. I can't talk about non-civilian, but what KM refers to as the combat mindset is not an uncommon or unimportant theme.

Absent military training or, more importantly, combat experience; do you think that instruction would have given you a 'combat mindset' such that you would assume the worst in any situation?

 dogma wrote:
Absent military training or, more importantly, combat experience; do you think that instruction would have given you a 'combat mindset' such that you would assume the worst in any situation?

I don't know. If it at least gets you thinking about it, that's a step in the right direction. I'd love to have everyone spend a week at Gunsite prior to getting their first handgun, but it's just not going to happen.

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Absent military training or, more importantly, combat experience; do you think that instruction would have given you a 'combat mindset' such that you would assume the worst in any situation?

I don't know. If it at least gets you thinking about it, that's a step in the right direction. I'd love to have everyone spend a week at Gunsite prior to getting their first handgun, but it's just not going to happen.

Live in East LA for month. You'll be paranoid forever.

 dogma wrote:

 Seaward wrote:

Are you certain?

Frankly, situational awareness and the Cooper scale have been taught in more than one civilian class I've attended. I can't talk about non-civilian, but what KM refers to as the combat mindset is not an uncommon or unimportant theme.

Absent military training or, more importantly, combat experience; do you think that instruction would have given you a 'combat mindset' such that you would assume the worst in any situation?

Colonel Cooper's been teaching it to cops, civilians and military for decades, and plenty of his students have "met the elephant" and lived to tell about it. So yes I'd say it's quite possible.

 dogma wrote:

Absent military training or, more importantly, combat experience; do you think that instruction would have given you a 'combat mindset' such that you would assume the worst in any situation?

No, but it helps.

My own parents brought be up to assume that every last person you meet will try to kill you, rob you, or con you. So far I've survived being shot, stabbed, and being run over by a bus, a jeep, and a taxi (not all at once). I've had three resuscitations. I've been poisoned (2x), drown (3x), and dragged through barbed wire by an out of control vehicle. I've been attacked by wolves, dogs, bears, rams, and men. I've fallen off a cliff once. I've been thrown off twice. I've been exposed to rare and exotic diseases. I even caught one that was dug up on an archeological dig. (Risks they do not mention in the literature...)

So, yeah, from my point of view, assuming everything is going to go south rapidly at any given moment is probably a safe bet. Even as I type this, I can see the doorway behind me in the mirror.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Live in East LA for month. You'll be paranoid forever.

See, that's not so bad. Try Bogota. Or Mexico City.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 dogma wrote:

Absent military training or, more importantly, combat experience; do you think that instruction would have given you a 'combat mindset' such that you would assume the worst in any situation?

No, but it helps.

My own parents brought be up to assume that every last person you meet will try to kill you, rob you, or con you. So far I've survived being shot, stabbed, and being run over by a bus, a jeep, and a taxi (not all at once). I've had three resuscitations. I've been poisoned (2x), drown (3x), and dragged through barbed wire by an out of control vehicle. I've been attacked by wolves, dogs, bears, rams, and men. I've fallen off a cliff once. I've been thrown off twice. I've been exposed to rare and exotic diseases. I even caught one that was dug up on an archeological dig. (Risks they do not mention in the literature...)

So, yeah, from my point of view, assuming everything is going to go south rapidly at any given moment is probably a safe bet. Even as I type this, I can see the doorway behind me in the mirror.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Live in East LA for month. You'll be paranoid forever.

See, that's not so bad. Try Bogota. Or Mexico City.

Have you thought about a new line of work?

 Hordini wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably there is a test, else there would be no way of knowing that the person had understood the training. Unless it is just a box-ticking exercise.

My suggestion is that appropriate training leading to a licence should be required for all guns.

I just checked, there is a test as part of the course in Ohio, which is good.


But if you're presuming there was a test, why were you saying there wasn't a test?

I didn't say there wasn't a test. I don't know what tests every state might use.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

Colonel Cooper's been teaching it to cops, civilians and military for decades, and plenty of his students have "met the elephant" and lived to tell about it. So yes I'd say it's quite possible.

Well, had been. And his general instruction was not about combat rsponse, but firearm safety.

 Frazzled wrote:

Have you thought about a new line of work?

Yeah, I got into antique dealing and invested in an IT firm to get away from the family business after the 3rd time I had to be resuscitated. The IT firm is now circling the drain as it's customers keep going under, but the antique business is doing great. I've moved more antique guns this month than I have in long time. Even had someone in about the 1795 contract musket.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

I even caught one that was dug up on an archeological dig. (Risks they do not mention in the literature...)

What disease did you catch?

Montezuma's revenge?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Have you thought about a new line of work?

Yeah, I got into antique dealing and invested in an IT firm to get away from the family business after the 3rd time I had to be resuscitated. The IT firm is now circling the drain as it's customers keep going under, but the antique business is doing great. I've moved more antique guns this month than I have in long time. Even had someone in about the 1795 contract musket.

Thats serious antiques. You don't wear a fedora and carry a bullwhip do you? If not, maybe you should.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Presumably there is a test, else there would be no way of knowing that the person had understood the training. Unless it is just a box-ticking exercise.

My suggestion is that appropriate training leading to a licence should be required for all guns.

Define appropriate training.
Define who gets to define appropriate training. It sounds stupid but it matters.

I would not presume to do so. There is a wealth of experience in the police and services for designing such tests.

The decision on what got made law would of course be made by your elected representatives.

In my view, there should be a core gun safety test for owning any gun. The standard for carrying a gun in public should be higher and include accuracy and combat response.

I mean, no-one cares if Joe Bloggs can shoot accurately as long as he isn't wandering around the streets with a gun. We care if he is going to accidentally shoot a child or neighbour by an accidental discharge.

People who are going about the streets with a gun need to make sure they aren't likely to hit bystanders.

It truly depends on the intent of the tests. As stated, there are jurisdictions who have used such tests to create a defacto ban (several have been overturned recently in court for just such a reason). If the test and requirement is truly just like a driver's license I'd be mor eok with it, but it would have to be "shall issue." (Aka default to issue not default to not issuing on a presumption basis).

I wasn't even reading this thread when a recent post started affecting one of my meters.

Then I read the this thread and a post made the meter explode.

 dogma wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

I even caught one that was dug up on an archeological dig. (Risks they do not mention in the literature...)

What disease did you catch?

An older strain of Influenza, they think (I ended up giving several blood samples to test for virii, since they were hoping that it was the 1918 strain, since that was around the period of the dig). It wasn't fun. I spent a month puking and gaking green slime. After a month it stopped, so...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Thats serious antiques. You don't wear a fedora and carry a bullwhip do you? If not, maybe you should.

No, I wear a slouch hat and a variety of trench coats depending on weather conditions and my urge to look fancy.

No, my real prize is a 1813 Sutton, made in Pittsburgh. She's a .69 smoothbore based off of, but improving on, the Charleville, that served Perry's fleet at Put in Bay before being sold south. She has her Mexican War dagger stamp and T Rangers carved in her stock, as well as a rather primitive conversion from flintlock to percussion. At the fall of Fort Donelson she was taken as a souvenir north again and spent 100+ years painted lead grey as a trophy in a GAR hall before the late Richard Vandal, also a Pittsburgh gunsmith, found her and restored her.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MrDwhitey wrote:

Then I read the this thread and a post made the meter explode.

Given the subject matter, does it surprise you? Both the pro and anti-gun lobby are full of BS looking to tilt public opinion their way.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

An older strain of Influenza, they think (I ended up giving several blood samples to test for virii, since they were hoping that it was the 1918 strain, since that was around the period of the dig). It wasn't fun. I spent a month puking and gaking green slime. After a month it stopped, so...

...you have no idea why you were sick, but have chosen the most glamorous reason.

 dogma wrote:

 BaronIveagh wrote:

An older strain of Influenza, they think (I ended up giving several blood samples to test for virii, since they were hoping that it was the 1918 strain, since that was around the period of the dig). It wasn't fun. I spent a month puking and gaking green slime. After a month it stopped, so...

...you have no idea why you were sick, but have chosen the most glamorous reason.

Hey, they really did. Personally, I have no fething idea, though since there was no announcement that they found that strain, I'm assuming it wasn't it. I didn't die, and was happy with that. I would like to imagine that if it had been an easy one , UPMC would have told me 'hey, you have X'. rather than shrugging and scratching and saying 'We have no idea what's doing this.' for a month while subjecting me to batteries of tests.