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.

 Ouze wrote:
It is not. The phrase "medical examiner" does not appear in the Fox news article. What you are referring to is a single line from boy's father, who is a doctor - but not a medical examiner. I imagine if he had said he did understand how it happened, he would have been prosecuted - just as the police chief and other event organizers were. But I see where you got that from, anyway.

I was wrong about that, then. Fair enough.

I still have absolutely no idea how that could occur. Recoil would walk the muzzle up and over, not straight back, then ninety to a hundred and ten degrees up.

 Seaward wrote:
Actually, the NRA is doing exactly what I, as someone who's given them a fair amount of cash recently, want them to do.

They are doing more harm to this cause than good by pissing everyone off. They're making the same mistakes the "Occupy" movement did, IMHO.

 Seaward wrote:
You can't compromise with emotionally-driven political agendas.

Which is exactly what the other side is saying, and NRA leadership is giving them sterling examples to point to as to how moronic and out of touch they are.

Honestly, they way they are behaving I could almost see a case being made that they actually want these bans to pass.

No one was convicted, so at least 12 other people agree with you on that - the inexplicably of it.

 Seaward wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
That doesn't really answer anything I said... at all, other than make a glib response. The reality of schooling with guns around is not what you think it would be. Do you have much experience teaching in schools?

You don't seem interested in actually reading or responding to a lot of things, just shooting from the hip, so to speak in threads.

I'll post the uninformed portions of your initial comment that I was responding to.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Teachers should be allowed guns in school, individual teachers can decide if they want them in their class? Where are they keeping them, in their desk?
...

And if you think it's safe to have a gun anywhere in a classroom then you clearly have never worked in a school. Anything in a classroom can be acquired by children at short notice, the moment you leave the room it's a hazard. If you're not going to leave them in unattended rooms, what are the teachers going to do, go out on lunch duty carrying the gun under their coat at all times?

I think I described the issue with teachers having guns on their person should they need to physically intervene in any sort of situation involving a child's behaviour. Aside from it just being stolen, it's a distinct risk that it'll end up being taken or dropped during a minor struggle, or some form of escalation in violence will occur to prevent the gun being taken whereas if there is never the overriding fear of a gun falling into the wrong hands then a situation is more easily defused.

For example, if two kids are fighting and merely shouting at them doesn't work, you can separate them by stepping between them arms apart to be both effective but non-threatening. It's an everyday occurrence with teenagers in a school and confrontations with staff rarely go further. If you do end up going further and having to restrain a child you use the minimum force and try to calm the situation by not being overly threatening. You certainly don't hit school kids and wrestle them to the floor except in the most serious cases of self defence. But if you have a gun on you, you can't do that, you can't expose the gun by holding you arms open, you can't get into any sort of extended wrestle in which things could be dropped or taken, you have to be it always remains secure on your person. So how can you guarantee that... avoid any physical confrontation with pupils or use more force to physically restrain them as quickly as you can? A minor school yard scuffle is escalated very quickly because you're more worried about keeping the gun secure than just breaking up minor squabbles. It's just not necessary, in almost every school situation the gun will make things more difficult for the teacher not easier.

Do you have any experience working in schools then? You clearly believe I'm 'uninformed' on the matter, my impression is that you know very little about what does and doesn't work with kids in schools.

 Monster Rain wrote:
They are doing more harm to this cause than good by pissing everyone off. They're making the same mistakes the "Occupy" movement did, IMHO.

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

When they prove otherwise, my cash goes to the Second Amendment Foundation or somebody else. I'm not defending the NRA, simply their goals. If a better lobbyist comes along? So be it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think I described the issue with teachers having guns on their person should they need to physically intervene in any sort of situation involving a child's behaviour. Aside from it just being stolen, it's a distinct risk that it'll end up being taken or dropped during a minor struggle, or some form of escalation in violence will occur to prevent the gun being taken whereas if there is never the overriding fear of a gun falling into the wrong hands then a situation is more easily defused.

Why are we assuming the kids are going to know their teacher's armed, and how he carries?

Do you have any experience working in schools then? You clearly believe I'm 'uninformed' on the matter, my impression is that you know very little about what does and doesn't work with kids in schools.

I have no experience working in schools. I do have quite a bit of experience with retention defense.

 Seaward wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
I think I described the issue with teachers having guns on their person should they need to physically intervene in any sort of situation involving a child's behaviour. Aside from it just being stolen, it's a distinct risk that it'll end up being taken or dropped during a minor struggle, or some form of escalation in violence will occur to prevent the gun being taken whereas if there is never the overriding fear of a gun falling into the wrong hands then a situation is more easily defused.

Why are we assuming the kids are going to know their teacher's armed, and how he carries?

Because they aren't quite as dumb as you want to believe. A teacher carrying a gun to school every day will become known and there's always the possibility that the gun could be taken in a struggle regardless of whether the pupil knew it was there before the confrontation.

Relapse wrote:

 Vulcan wrote:

 Cheesecat wrote:
Because the US has a much larger amount of gun related crimes in comparison to the rest of developed nations.

Including Switzerland and Israel? Where the military takes their FULLY AUTOMATIC assault rifles home? And yet they still don't have anything close to the rate of gun crimes we do?

Sounds to me like the guns aren't the issue. It's something fundamentally wrong with American sociology.

This man speaks the truth.

You all realize that Switzerland has an insanely tight control regimen for the sale of ammunition, right? These days they don't even get issued any ammo with their military-grade stuff, they're supposed to pick ammo up at the nearest armoury in case of emergency.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Because they aren't quite as dumb as you want to believe. A teacher carrying a gun to school every day will become known and there's always the possibility that the gun could be taken in a struggle regardless of whether the pupil knew it was there before the confrontation.

I think this may just be unfamiliarity with concealed carry talking. There are people I see almost every day, for hours at a time, and have for years now, who do not know I have had a gun on me every single second in their presence.

There are hundreds of thousands of concealed carry permits in America. If you've been over here, the chances are better that you were around someone carrying a gun and had no idea than not. It's not at all easy to spot unless you know exactly what you're looking for or the carrier is blatantly printing.

 Seaward wrote:
I'm not defending the NRA, simply their goals.

You support preying on peoples irrational fears to get them give you money? Seems an odd goal to support, unless like NRA management, you are one of the recipients of said largesse.

 Ahtman wrote:
You support preying on peoples irrational fears to get them give you money? Seems an odd goal to support, unless like NRA management, you are one of the recipients of said largesse.

No, I support their goal of fending off ridiculous and ineffective legislation that would be passed solely for the purpose of making people feel better.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
I'm not defending the NRA, simply their goals.

You support preying on peoples irrational fears to get them give you money? Seems an odd goal to support, unless like NRA management, you are one of the recipients of said largesse.

So? Just about all these group preys on irrational fears...

Brady Campaign? PP? Environment Gorups? Heck... even churches.

Why are federal background checks bad, again?

 Monster Rain wrote:
Why are federal background checks bad, again?

They're not. They're also already in use.

Why are you pretending that expanding them is the only thing being proposed?

 Seaward wrote:

Nor was I saying they were. I was, instead, saying that good firearms training is, by necessity, extensive. Unable to refute the argument, you took refuge in being deliberately obtuse.

I wasn't attempting to refute an argument. I was attempting to force you to collect the myriad content-devoid posts you make into a statement. The bold seems to indicate that I succeeded.

 Seaward wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
Why are federal background checks bad, again?

They're not. They're also already in use.

Why are you pretending that expanding them is the only thing being proposed?

I'm not.

Allowing the things that are reasonable would be "compromise". That dirty word you and the NRA want no part of.

 Seaward wrote:

I still have absolutely no idea how that could occur. Recoil would walk the muzzle up and over, not straight back, then ninety to a hundred and ten degrees up.

Without delving into the fundamentals of physics, there is a reason that people complain about sore hands after a long day of shooting.

 Monster Rain wrote:
I'm not.

Allowing the things that are reasonable would be "compromise". That dirty word you and the NRA want no part of.

Neither side wants a part of it. For my part, I'd be happy to compromise with extending background checks to all sales, private or otherwise, provided the administration came up with a workable system that didn't involve forcing private parties to pay a local business just for the privilege of selling their guns. What do you think the anti-gun folks would be willing to drop?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
Without delving into the fundamentals of physics, there is a reason that people complain about sore hands after a long day of shooting.

How often have you shot automatic weapons, again?

There seem to be rather a lot of videos on youtube of people hitting themselves in the face with guns they've fired though. Actually, some of the 'gun fail' videos on youtube are quite scary...

 Seaward wrote:

 dogma wrote:
Without delving into the fundamentals of physics, there is a reason that people complain about sore hands after a long day of shooting.

How often have you shot automatic weapons, again?

I've never jumped in lava, yet remain confident it would burn me.

 Seaward wrote:

How often have you shot automatic weapons, again?

Twice, though I'm not certain how that's relevant to a physics problem. In its simplest form any firearm discharge can be expressed as a series of force vectors, with each discharge altering the path of recoil. The first discharge, assuming proper stance and an above-hand chamber position, will always push against and over the hand; placing the initial vector at roughly shoulder height. Any successive discharge will alter that vector such that the weapon continues to kick upwards, but also towards the ground. Ordinarily the strength of the shooter (and length of the weapon) compensates for this, but when that's absent * problems arise.



*Perhaps in the case of a small child.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
There seem to be rather a lot of videos on youtube of people hitting themselves in the face with guns they've fired though. Actually, some of the 'gun fail' videos on youtube are quite scary...

Getting hit with the back of the gun is quite a bit different than getting the barrel either completely turned around or under your chin with a finger still on the trigger. The closest YouTube videos come to even remotely showing such an occurrence is the infamous chick smacking herself in the forehead with the slide of a Desert Eagle.

 dogma wrote:
Twice, though I'm not certain how that's relevant to a physics problem. In its simplest form any firearm discharge can be expressed as a series of force vectors, with each discharge altering the path of recoil. The first discharge, assuming proper stance and an above-hand chamber position, will always push against and over the hand; placing the initial vector at roughly shoulder height. Any successive discharge will alter that vector such that the weapon continues to kick upwards, but also towards the ground. Ordinarily the strength of the shooter (and length of the weapon) compensates for this, but when that's absent * problems arise.



*Perhaps in the case of a small child.

There are also considerable problems involved with keeping a finger on the trigger when the barrel has rotated at least 110 degrees, to the point where I doubt it'd be possible.

The poor kid obviously got shot in the head, but as everyone at the scene was unable to explain how, and the physics lesson above doesn't do anything remotely close to explaining it, it shall have to remain a mystery.

My elbow is able to bend back towards my face while still being able to pull my fingers into a fist, it seems a fair assumption something similar to that could of happened

I think I described the issue with teachers having guns on their person should they need to physically intervene in any sort of situation involving a child's behaviour. Aside from it just being stolen, it's a distinct risk that it'll end up being taken or dropped during a minor struggle, or some form of escalation in violence will occur to prevent the gun being taken whereas if there is never the overriding fear of a gun falling into the wrong hands then a situation is more easily defused.

For example, if two kids are fighting and merely shouting at them doesn't work, you can separate them by stepping between them arms apart to be both effective but non-threatening. It's an everyday occurrence with teenagers in a school and confrontations with staff rarely go further. If you do end up going further and having to restrain a child you use the minimum force and try to calm the situation by not being overly threatening. You certainly don't hit school kids and wrestle them to the floor except in the most serious cases of self defence. But if you have a gun on you, you can't do that, you can't expose the gun by holding you arms open, you can't get into any sort of extended wrestle in which things could be dropped or taken, you have to be it always remains secure on your person. So how can you guarantee that... avoid any physical confrontation with pupils or use more force to physically restrain them as quickly as you can? A minor school yard scuffle is escalated very quickly because you're more worried about keeping the gun secure than just breaking up minor squabbles. It's just not necessary, in almost every school situation the gun will make things more difficult for the teacher not easier.

Do you have any experience working in schools then? You clearly believe I'm 'uninformed' on the matter, my impression is that you know very little about what does and doesn't work with kids in schools.

Thank god someone echoes my wife's opinion, who is a teacher, and contrary to what armchair "gun-professionals" claim, she actually in fact knows better than they do what the logistics of carrying a gun as a teacher would be.

-Keep it in their desk? Can't leave the room without it, then, ever- for it can be taken by a kid.

-Carry it on their person? Any big kid can attack her and then gain easy access to a gun. These things are frikking Lawgivers!- if a football player size kid knocks my wife down and takes a gun out of her holster, he/she now has the full ability to use it. Now they didn't even have to steal one and then sneak it into school!

-You can't even have pointed scissors in a Kindergarten class- you have to treat those little kids like convicts on work release. So now you want a GUN!?!?!?!

I take back what I said early about this uzi thing being off-topic. The fact we're debating whether or not something could happen that did happen in front of dozens of witnesses and was in fact caught on videotape actually goes really well with the thread's spirit, if not it's letter.

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
My elbow is able to bend back towards my face while still being able to pull my fingers into a fist, it seems a fair assumption something similar to that could of happened

As is mine. A weak grip with a pistol, including a machine pistol, has the gun recoiling up and back, however, not straight back. I'd need a small child to experiment with to be sure, but my initial thought from years of seeing bad shooters is that even the weakest grip requisite to lift the gun is not going to change that equation into straight back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ouze wrote:
I take back what I said early about this uzi thing being off-topic. The fact we're debating whether or not something could happen that did happen in front of dozens of witnesses and was in fact caught on videotape actually goes really well with the thread's spirit, if not it's letter.

I'm not debating that it happened at all. It clearly did. I can't, for the life of me, understand how it did, and the usual suspects have decided that's a ludicrous statement and decided to jump in with the usual, "I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night," stuff.

Edit: The video's interesting. I would've said it was even more improbable with a stock, but there you go. They keep saying it "backfired," with to me suggests he didn't so much get shot in the head as there was a kaboom.

 Seaward wrote:
I'd need a small child to experiment with to be sure, but my initial thought from years of seeing bad shooters is that even the weakest grip requisite to lift the gun is not going to change that equation into straight back

I've heard vans with "free candy" spray painted on the side work well.

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.

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.

It says a lot about the pro-gun lobby that when something like this happens, they're rather call it a mystery and play on their disbelief over the bizarre physics of the situation, rather than just accept the simple fact that the guns were again owned by idiots that led to an easily preventable death.

 Seaward wrote:

There are also considerable problems involved with keeping a finger on the trigger when the barrel has rotated at least 110 degrees, to the point where I doubt it'd be possible.

If the only point of articulation was the wrist, then you would be correct. However the human arm has an elbow, and a shoulder; the cruel ball-and-socket joint mistress that she is.

 Seaward wrote:

The poor kid obviously got shot in the head, but as everyone at the scene was unable to explain how, and the physics lesson above doesn't do anything remotely close to explaining it, it shall have to remain a mystery.

I thought I did a decent job for someone that hasn't formally studied physics since high school. I'm sure I was well off on, if nothing else, terminology but how the poor kid got shot in the head is far from a mystery.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It says a lot about the pro-gun lobby that when something like this happens, they're rather call it a mystery and play on their disbelief over the bizarre physics of the situation, rather than just accept the simple fact that the guns were again owned by idiots that led to an easily preventable death.

I'm the pro-gun lobby now? I'm moving up in the world.

 Seaward wrote:

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
It says a lot about the pro-gun lobby that when something like this happens, they're rather call it a mystery and play on their disbelief over the bizarre physics of the situation, rather than just accept the simple fact that the guns were again owned by idiots that led to an easily preventable death.

I'm the pro-gun lobby now? I'm moving up in the world.

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