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.

 Easy E wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Kalashnikov has a very good point here. Compared to the number of shootings each year, dangerous driving is far more lethal, yet we still let people have access too cars, which if you think on it are essentially 1-2 Ton hunks of metal capable of going at ridiculous speeds.

Which is more lethal-a drunk with a gun or a drunk in a car?

I really hate this argument.

A car is designed to transport stuff. A gun is designed to kill stuff. See the difference?

So an item designed only for deadly purpose, still manages to kill fewer people then cars, despite outnumbering them significantly.

I think I see the difference here...

The intent of my guns are to protect my freedom. For me, that's far more important than a car.

I helped teach a firearms training class to 20 school teachers. We did it for free. All the students were women. This was in a district where a teacher was allowed to conceal carry in the classroom legally.

I also say armed personnel of some kind is a good idea, but good luck getting it funded. The school districts where I'm from (before I moved to Japan) were having their budgets cut on a yearly basis.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
He purchased the shotgun legally, why am I not surprised? It's almost like a lot kids who fit the profile of "socially awkward" aren't "down" enough with their local criminal element to purchase a firearm illegally. It's a good thing this 18 year old was sold a shotgun legally, I mean he could have got one at a gun show for all I know, no point revisiting that at all. Nope. Instead, the obvious solution here is armed security officer or team of armed security officers in every school paid for by... magic?

You can buy a shotgun in Canada and the UK as well.

Alpha 1 wrote:
To Frazzaled: To legally buy a gun in Canada you need to have a Firearms licence much like a drivers licence. Now there are two categories with this licence unrestricted and restricted fire arms under unrestricted are shotguns and long guns used for hunting and such, Restricted are pistols and other semi automatic rifles think AR 15. To get this licence you first must take a certified gun safety course there is one for each classification when you pass these course including the exam you can than apply for the licence. Once you apply the government of Canada conducts an pretty extensive investigation on you including background check, credit check, who your friends and family are and if they have any links to criminal activity, they even do a small physiological examination on you if any red flags pop up say cause you said something stupid on facebook you are denied. Once you have this licence than you can go and buy a gun legally.
It dose not matter if you are in the Military or the Police if you want to own a firearm than you must have this licence. With out this licence witch can also be used as photo ID you will not get a gun legally anywhere in Canada.

Basically meaning that unless you're "down" with the local criminal element it's not possible here in Canada to just walk into a store and walk out with a firearm unles you've got your pal (license). Bottom line, there's a huge expanse of time between deciding you want a gun license, taking the course, passing the exams and receiving said license, and that's really the point I'm making, this kid walks into a store and walks out with a shotgun, I agree the age is arbitrary, I have a problem with anyone being able to walk into a store and buy a gun without any licensing or background check, and most americans agree and want some kind of background check.


And all this car bs, listen, if psychos who couldn't access a firearm were instead driving through the halls of their school mowing people down with their cars I'd say you guys had a point. Accidental deaths occur all the time, it's tragic, often they lead to better safety measure being put in place, how that compares to mass shootings I have no clue.

I always laugh when people compare cars to guns, thing is cars have licenses. Guns don't.

I happily agree with everything said by the Canadian above me, licensing works , least in my country. If you don't want to have a control on guns, keep having out of control usage.

I am about to apply for a gun license myself, it takes a while to get one and the guy running the test can fail you on the spot if you fail your safety test (the local gun shop owner has no problem failing people - he fails people he considers too weird too ) then once I get the license I have to put my guns into his storage until I have enough money to buy a gun safe which either has to be very heavy or bolted to the floor.
As a potential gun owner I am happy about all of these controls and will happily comply. In my view complying is about being responsible and making sure your hobbys' danger is minimised towards others.
YMMV but I am happy with the state of gun crime in my country.

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
He purchased the shotgun legally, why am I not surprised? It's almost like a lot kids who fit the profile of "socially awkward" aren't "down" enough with their local criminal element to purchase a firearm illegally. It's a good thing this 18 year old was sold a shotgun legally, I mean he could have got one at a gun show for all I know, no point revisiting that at all. Nope. Instead, the obvious solution here is armed security officer or team of armed security officers in every school paid for by... magic?

You can buy a shotgun in Canada and the UK as well.

Alpha 1 wrote:
To Frazzaled: To legally buy a gun in Canada you need to have a Firearms licence much like a drivers licence. Now there are two categories with this licence unrestricted and restricted fire arms under unrestricted are shotguns and long guns used for hunting and such, Restricted are pistols and other semi automatic rifles think AR 15. To get this licence you first must take a certified gun safety course there is one for each classification when you pass these course including the exam you can than apply for the licence. Once you apply the government of Canada conducts an pretty extensive investigation on you including background check, credit check, who your friends and family are and if they have any links to criminal activity, they even do a small physiological examination on you if any red flags pop up say cause you said something stupid on facebook you are denied. Once you have this licence than you can go and buy a gun legally.
It dose not matter if you are in the Military or the Police if you want to own a firearm than you must have this licence. With out this licence witch can also be used as photo ID you will not get a gun legally anywhere in Canada.

Basically meaning that unless you're "down" with the local criminal element it's not possible here in Canada to just walk into a store and walk out with a firearm unles you've got your pal (license). Bottom line, there's a huge expanse of time between deciding you want a gun license, taking the course, passing the exams and receiving said license, and that's really the point I'm making, this kid walks into a store and walks out with a shotgun, I agree the age is arbitrary, I have a problem with anyone being able to walk into a store and buy a gun without any licensing or background check, and most americans agree and want some kind of background check.


And all this car bs, listen, if psychos who couldn't access a firearm were instead driving through the halls of their school mowing people down with their cars I'd say you guys had a point. Accidental deaths occur all the time, it's tragic, often they lead to better safety measure being put in place, how that compares to mass shootings I have no clue.

You should have stuck with Canadian law, you have no idea how firearm purchases occur on the US. Contrary to popular (and completely wrong) OPINION, you cannot walk into an LGS and just walk out with a firearm without going through a criminal background check.

As a customer, you have to fill out a Federal form 4473, and a background check called NICS is run to make sure you are not a prohibited person. As an FFL, I have to retain your paperwork for 20 (TWENTY) years. This paperwork is routinely checked via audits by the ATF. If you are a prohibited person or lie on the 4473, it is an automatic felony for having filled out the form.

I am sick and tired of hearing the ignorant parroting of the gun grabbers talking point "we need background checks". Guess what, they are in place already.

I thought you could walk into a gun show and walk out with a gun though ( that could be a misconception on my part though)

Bullockist wrote:
I always laugh when people compare cars to guns, thing is cars have licenses. Guns don't.

I happily agree with everything said by the Canadian above me, licensing works , least in my country. If you don't want to have a control on guns, keep having out of control usage.

I am about to apply for a gun license myself, it takes a while to get one and the guy running the test can fail you on the spot if you fail your safety test (the local gun shop owner has no problem failing people - he fails people he considers too weird too ) then once I get the license I have to put my guns into his storage until I have enough money to buy a gun safe which either has to be very heavy or bolted to the floor.
As a potential gun owner I am happy about all of these controls and will happily comply. In my view complying is about being responsible and making sure your hobbys' danger is minimised towards others.
YMMV but I am happy with the state of gun crime in my country.

Yes, licensing and registration worked as it lead to confiscation in Australia. We lamented your loss of rights (in all sincerity).

How does it compare? Deaths caused by drunk drivers (non-accidental) are a daily occurrence, mass shootings are a statistical anomaly.

Bullockist wrote:
I thought you could walk into a gun show and walk out with a gun though ( that could be a misconception on my part though)

Its one of the many lies that US media has been pushing in regards to gun control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Musashi363 wrote:
How does it compare? Deaths caused by drunk drivers (non-accidental) are a daily occurrence, mass shootings are a statistical anomaly.

Logic has no place in the progressive pursuit of gun control! How dare you!

Bullockist wrote:
I thought you could walk into a gun show and walk out with a gun though ( that could be a misconception on my part though)

You have to buy kettle corn first. Its the law.
Thanks Obama!

thing is cars have licenses.

Thing is, that only applies when you want to drive on public roads.

....And you don't need a license to BUY a car, merely to operate one in public. Come to think of it, you need to do that too with a firearm if you want to carry concealed in most places or hunt with it. Funny thing, huh?

I thought you could walk into a gun show and walk out with a gun though

From private citizen to private citizen, yes. In most states (But you don't need to go to a gun show to do this. In my experience people charge way more than they should at shows anyway.) If you go to a gunshow and buy something from a dealer you still go through the whole background check process. What people call the "Gun show loophole" is in reality "The ability to sell privately loophole" ...but if they came out and said "We don't want you to be able to sell your guns without going through a dealer, under any circumstances"...well...suddenly even the Elmer Fudds would get pissed, and they know it.

Yes, licensing and registration worked as it lead to confiscation in Australia. We lamented your loss of rights (in all sincerity).

Hey don't worry, now that they can't buy semi autos and standard cap mags...the bad guys just build machine guns instead!

 Crablezworth wrote:
I agree the age is arbitrary, I have a problem with anyone being able to walk into a store and buy a gun without any licensing or background check, and most americans agree and want some kind of background check.


And all this car bs, listen, if psychos who couldn't access a firearm were instead driving through the halls of their school mowing people down with their cars I'd say you guys had a point. Accidental deaths occur all the time, it's tragic, often they lead to better safety measure being put in place, how that compares to mass shootings I have no clue.

Umm... I know that it gets cold in Canada, and that may have frostbitten your brain... but we DO have mandatory background checks to purchase just about ANY firearm in the US. It just so happens that our system works quite a bit faster than your system in Canada. Basically, you go in, say I want firearm X. The clerk will then say, "OK, first I need you to fill out this form, and I need ID card, etc." (I say etc. because you are technically only able to buy a firearm in your state of residence. Certain states have caveats to this, like Kentucky recognizes that if you live in any state that borders with it, you can buy a firearm in the state of Kentucky. Also, if you are military, the orders bringing you into the state in which you currently reside are good, provided you have your military ID/state drivers license) They then take that form, and your ID over to a computer system, and punch in the required info, send it off over the internet and a few minutes (usually) later, they come back and say "youre good to go, I can ring you up over at the register" or they'll say "sorry, something came up, and I cannot sell you this firearm at this time"



The car thing does compare, because on the whole, they cause more deaths. We also have the recent case of idiotic Richy McRich pants getting drunk underage, hopping into his vehicle and killing 4 people through his idiocy. Frankly, I would not consider that "accidental" but I don't write or enforce laws.

jamesk1973 wrote:

Final step: Don't actually train any of the teachers nor emplace any firearms.

Ha! Useful until the secret gets out, but I can just imagine all of these safe doors mounted onto drywall behind them.

 SOFDC wrote:

Yes, licensing and registration worked as it lead to confiscation in Australia. We lamented your loss of rights (in all sincerity).

Hey don't worry, now that they can't buy semi autos and standard cap mags...the bad guys just build machine guns instead!

They also resort to "importing" them through Tennessee, hidden inside of engine blocks

 SOFDC wrote:

thing is cars have licenses.

Thing is, that only applies when you want to drive on public roads.

....And you don't need a license to BUY a car, merely to operate one in public. Come to think of it, you need to do that too with a firearm if you want to carry concealed in most places or hunt with it. Funny thing, huh?

Hey don't worry, now that they can't buy semi autos and standard cap mags...the bad guys just build machine guns instead!

Here you need a license to own a gun, big difference, and an effective one. Laws come down hard on illegal firearms here. When police go for a drug bust first thing they do after stopping the flushing is look for firearms, kinda shows you what the emphasis is on, they know it is an easy conviction for illegal firearms. For example a silencer carries a 10 year term.

Most crims here use semi autos with small clips for shooting /drive bys . I think it's better that way. The more guns they try and smuggle in in engine blocks that get caught the happier I am.
I am not anti-gun, I am just pro control. Some shooters thought the world was going to end when semi-autos were banned , but they just adapted. Personally if I'm out shooting varmints (as is the plan) if i need a semi auto I'm doing something wrong - though when I wing my first fox, i'll probably wish I had one

Haven't a variety of crime rates like home invasions gone up since the Aussie gun ban?

 Spacemanvic wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
He purchased the shotgun legally, why am I not surprised? It's almost like a lot kids who fit the profile of "socially awkward" aren't "down" enough with their local criminal element to purchase a firearm illegally. It's a good thing this 18 year old was sold a shotgun legally, I mean he could have got one at a gun show for all I know, no point revisiting that at all. Nope. Instead, the obvious solution here is armed security officer or team of armed security officers in every school paid for by... magic?

You can buy a shotgun in Canada and the UK as well.

Alpha 1 wrote:
To Frazzaled: To legally buy a gun in Canada you need to have a Firearms licence much like a drivers licence. Now there are two categories with this licence unrestricted and restricted fire arms under unrestricted are shotguns and long guns used for hunting and such, Restricted are pistols and other semi automatic rifles think AR 15. To get this licence you first must take a certified gun safety course there is one for each classification when you pass these course including the exam you can than apply for the licence. Once you apply the government of Canada conducts an pretty extensive investigation on you including background check, credit check, who your friends and family are and if they have any links to criminal activity, they even do a small physiological examination on you if any red flags pop up say cause you said something stupid on facebook you are denied. Once you have this licence than you can go and buy a gun legally.
It dose not matter if you are in the Military or the Police if you want to own a firearm than you must have this licence. With out this licence witch can also be used as photo ID you will not get a gun legally anywhere in Canada.

Basically meaning that unless you're "down" with the local criminal element it's not possible here in Canada to just walk into a store and walk out with a firearm unles you've got your pal (license). Bottom line, there's a huge expanse of time between deciding you want a gun license, taking the course, passing the exams and receiving said license, and that's really the point I'm making, this kid walks into a store and walks out with a shotgun, I agree the age is arbitrary, I have a problem with anyone being able to walk into a store and buy a gun without any licensing or background check, and most americans agree and want some kind of background check.


And all this car bs, listen, if psychos who couldn't access a firearm were instead driving through the halls of their school mowing people down with their cars I'd say you guys had a point. Accidental deaths occur all the time, it's tragic, often they lead to better safety measure being put in place, how that compares to mass shootings I have no clue.

You should have stuck with Canadian law, you have no idea how firearm purchases occur on the US. Contrary to popular (and completely wrong) OPINION, you cannot walk into an LGS and just walk out with a firearm without going through a criminal background check.

As a customer, you have to fill out a Federal form 4473, and a background check called NICS is run to make sure you are not a prohibited person. As an FFL, I have to retain your paperwork for 20 (TWENTY) years. This paperwork is routinely checked via audits by the ATF. If you are a prohibited person or lie on the 4473, it is an automatic felony for having filled out the form.

I am sick and tired of hearing the ignorant parroting of the gun grabbers talking point "we need background checks". Guess what, they are in place already.

Here the best case scenario is about 28 days (which never happens) the longest about 7 months with the average being about 3 months to get your license. A 5-20 minute criminal background check is horsegak.

 Crablezworth wrote:
,
Here the best case scenario is about 28 days (which never happens) the longest about 7 months with the average being about 3 months to get your license. A 5-20 minute criminal background check is horsegak.

No. 28 days is. And you should be furious as a citizen that it takes that long. Are they interviewing high school teachers and taking stool samples?

The NICS check is perfectly fine and does what it's supposed to do.

 cincydooley wrote:
Haven't a variety of crime rates like home invasions gone up since the Aussie gun ban?

They have gone up , not by much per capita in 15 years ( I am looking at nsw figures) . There are no figures for home invasion , there are figures for stealing from a person, break and enter , but i think you would be pulling a LOOOOOONG bow if you tried to link that increase to gun control. People here do not buy guns for protection, they buy them for shooting, whether that be target and associated sports, hunting or pest control.

robbery with a firearm between 2008 and 2012 is stable.
Stealing from a person is down by 6% in the same period.
break and enter dwelling is down by 2.2% in the same period.
I would like to look at 1996 to 2012 but they have changed the scale of the reports.

Cincy, if you read a report in the Telegraph about home invasions being up , chances are they aren't , the same paper was running a story about gun crime being up earlier this year when it was exactly the same statistically as last year.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Crablezworth wrote:
,
Here the best case scenario is about 28 days (which never happens) the longest about 7 months with the average being about 3 months to get your license. A 5-20 minute criminal background check is horsegak.

No. 28 days is. And you should be furious as a citizen that it takes that long. Are they interviewing high school teachers and taking stool samples?

The NICS check is perfectly fine and does what it's supposed to do.

Agreed. It is beyond rediculous. There is nothing that they find in the 28 days (7 months? Really?) that they can't find in the 10 minute check we run. All it is, is a delaying tactic to try to keep them out of your hand.

They took your guns in Canada!

 Crablezworth wrote:
Here the best case scenario is about 28 days (which never happens) the longest about 7 months with the average being about 3 months to get your license. A 5-20 minute criminal background check is horsegak.

That's redonk dude... I don't know what they use to conduct the background checks with, but I get put into the system it took me 15 minutes and like 40 dollars. From there I've had several background checks take that much time at most for jobs and the like. I think in Canada it might take that long to dissuade people from going out, buying a gun, and shooting up a school/gov't building/hockey rink/etc... Which I can see as a good thing, but at the same time without purposeful stalling on someone's part, there is no way that something like a background check should take that long.

I don't get this idea about how arming all teachers is going to solve anything opposed to training and arming maybe 1 or two guys.

And as a response to people saying "We don't arm ALL teachers": How many do we arm then? Because I don't think arming maybe 1 out of 10 teachers will put a damper on school shootings unless they happen to luck out and be the 1 class room that's hit.

Better to have trained officers ready to respond rather than praying to god Mr. Johnson remembers his training and immediately steps in, as opposed to:

A. Just staying with his own kids
B. Panicking and dying
C. Panicking and not doing anything
D. Harming someone by accident
E. Overpowered by the shooter giving him access to more ammunition

So yeah things get complicated as I said when you start doing the whole arming teachers scenario. Hell, if your training all teachers how to shoot properly and maintain firearms might as well put them all in the reserves and have them just train once a month.

Out of curiosity, after we arm teachers who do we arm next?

Nurses to protect against armed shooters in the Hospitals?

Office workers to stop office shootings?

Flight Attendants to protect against terrorists?

Librarians to protect against shooters in the library?

Firemen to protect against shooters trying to ambush them at fires?

In all seriousnees, is there a point where we stop arming people to protect themselves against an active shooter scenario?

It's the American way!

 Alexzandvar wrote:
I don't get this idea about how arming all teachers is going to solve anything opposed to training and arming maybe 1 or two guys.

And as a response to people saying "We don't arm ALL teachers": How many do we arm then? Because I don't think arming maybe 1 out of 10 teachers will put a damper on school shootings unless they happen to luck out and be the 1 class room that's hit.

Better to have trained officers ready to respond rather than praying to god Mr. Johnson remembers his training and immediately steps in, as opposed to:

A. Just staying with his own kids
B. Panicking and dying
C. Panicking and not doing anything
D. Harming someone by accident
E. Overpowered by the shooter giving him access to more ammunition

So yeah things get complicated as I said when you start doing the whole arming teachers scenario. Hell, if your training all teachers how to shoot properly and maintain firearms might as well put them all in the reserves and have them just train once a month.

Your argument falls apart quickly. It would seem you agree a guy with a gun is needed to stop a shooter. Yet you think folks are calling to arm ALL teachers because 'unless they happen to luck out and be the 1 class room that's hit' an armed teacher is worthless. Yet unless the armed cop happens to be in the classroom that is hit, the cop must move to the shooter the same way an armed teacher would have to move to a shooter. And even assuming an armed teacher does not move to the shooter, if the shooter moves to their classroom the armed teacher can defend his/her students up until the armed cop arrives. That addresses your point A. As for B-E, an armed cop could have the exact same things happen. Just as in case F which you conveniently skipped: The armed good guy/gal stops the shooter, could happen with an armed teacher or an armed cop.

Your straw man about putting all teachers in the reserves is just silly. Again, all anyone is calling for is that teachers with a concealed carry permit be allowed to carry on campus if they choose to do so. You'll find that those permit holders tend to be responsible gun owners and know how to 'shoot properly and maintain firearms'.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Easy E wrote:
Out of curiosity, after we arm teachers who do we arm next?

Nurses to protect against armed shooters in the Hospitals?

Office workers to stop office shootings?

Flight Attendants to protect against terrorists?

Librarians to protect against shooters in the library?

Firemen to protect against shooters trying to ambush them at fires?

In all seriousnees, is there a point where we stop arming people to protect themselves against an active shooter scenario?

Spoiler:

P.S. I think I know the answer already. It is No. There is no point to stop arming people.

How about we don't 'arm' anyone? How about we let individuals choose to arm themselves if they so desire?

For the record, I know firemen who carry. I also know office workers who carry, and a couple people who work in hospitals that carry.

The proof an armed society is a polite one is a fallacy

An armed society is a paranoid and fearful society, the idea you need to give everyone guns in order to make people treat each other decent is abhorrent.

At a point you have to stop and think what happened when we decided rather than reach out to troubled people to prevent things like this to instead just arm society to the teeth.

Great. Than we don't need to worry about arming teachers per the NRA's advice. I'm glad we agree Jake.

I think the problem is that in an active shooter scenario people seem to be expecting a teacher to go out and hunt down the active shooter. As someone that's been in drills for an 'intruder in the school' (i.e. lockdown drill), we don't want teachers actively moving through the school in such a situation, we want the teachers protecting their students.

If we were to arm the teachers, would we not want them to take up a defensive position in their classroom? Like in the high school I did my student teaching at, a "Code Ranger" had the teachers shut and lock the classroom door, turn off the lights, and pull everyone out of line of sight of the window in the door.

The best case scenario is that we no longer have to deal with active shooter situations in the school (I don't think stricter gun laws will do much to dissuade those that really wish to commit such acts), but I would rather put the teachers into a defensive mindset and keep their students safe than to feel like they have to go out and search the school for this person.

 Easy E wrote:
Great. Than we don't need to worry about arming teachers per the NRA's advice. I'm glad we agree Jake.

I think you should go back and read what the NRA's actually said about the subject. You appear to either be wildly misinterpreting, or woefully misinformed.