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.

 Matthew wrote:


Amounts of school shootings in the US since 2000: Over 30
Amounts of school shootings in Sweden ever, where gun laws are strict: 0. Ever.
I think some stricter gun laws would be better. Just this, an infant murdering his/her mother. Or, that time a little girl shot a firearms instructor to death because of the recoil on an SMG. WHY WOULD A LITTLE KID EVEN NEED TO KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A GUN!?!?

Our gun laws are fine, thanks.

I couldn't give a bulls tit about the number of shootings in Sweden, quite frankly.

And both of those deaths were due to severe negligence on part of the adult.

 Matthew wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Matthew wrote:
Clap, clap clap.

Well done, 'Murica. Why can't you just get rid of those dumb gun laws?

Our gun laws are fine, thanks.

Amounts of school shootings in the US since 2000: Over 30
Amounts of school shootings in Sweden ever, where gun laws are strict: 0. Ever.
I think some stricter gun laws would be better. Just this, an infant murdering his/her mother. Or, that time a little girl shot a firearms instructor to death because of the recoil on an SMG. WHY WOULD A LITTLE KID EVEN NEED TO KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A GUN!?!?

SMG was a Uzi I believe
I taught a bunch of Boy Scouts how to shoot an Assault Rifle (M4/AR15) and weapon safety, muzzle awareness, breathing technique, and how to zero the weapon
Another trained them on a 9mm

So your saying I've trained a bunch of killers eh?

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
And buying a "heavy-caliber-sniper-rifle-o'-doom" is more complicated than buying a car or motorbike, as explained above. Purchasing a mechanically propelled vehicle does not require a background check through the FBI, and felons are permitted to own and operate motor vehicles

Laws are different in every country.

In France, you just need a license from the French Sport Shooting Federation. If your gun is big and scary, you may have to fill some additionnal paperwork after your purchase. If your gun is really big and really scary (larger than .50 BMG), you must have an authorization before the purchase, which will probably not happen, because you're basically asking the cops if they don't mind about that anti-tank rifle you plan to buy...

That's all. Sure, you need a license, and the Federation won't deliver one unless you spend a couple hours at the shooting range, a medical check from your doctor, but that part isn't different from having a license from the Basketball or Horseriding Federation... You'll have to give your criminal record, though. Furthermore, that license can be revoked if you don't show up at least 3 times a year in a shooting range. But that's it.

If you want to buy and drive a car, you have to fill paperwork, pass a written exam about the regulations and stuff, then take the driving exam. Add some more paperwork, you have your license now. Buy a car, fill some more paperwork to have your registration plates, and then fill more paperwork for the (mandatory) insurance. Some crimes can prevent you from taking the exam for a couple years: you really, really don't want to get caught while driving under the influence if you need that truck driving license.


All in all, in some countries, it may be easier to have a gun than a car. Most people are still afraid of guns and stay away from them.

 Smacks wrote:
I agree, but you've missed the point. Everyone is going to make a mistake eventually it is just a matter of time. The only way to 100% prevent human error is to remove human responsibility.

The issue here is not the object. The issue here was the decision to leave the object with the child. There is risk associated with every human activity, I do not see how we remove human responsibility from every action or decision made by humans

 Smacks wrote:
So she might have got robbed, but instead she died, and a firearm was discharged by a kid. So again I will say that I think the risks outweighed the rewards, in this case.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Litcheur wrote:
Laws are different in every country.

In France, you just need a license from the French Sport Shooting Federation. If your gun is big and scary, you may have to fill some additionnal paperwork after your purchase. If your gun is really big and really scary (larger than .50 BMG), you must have an authorization before the purchase, which will probably not happen, because you're basically asking the cops if they don't mind about that anti-tank rifle you plan to buy...

That's all. Sure, you need a license, and the Federation won't deliver one unless you spend a couple hours at the shooting range, a medical check from your doctor, but that part isn't different from having a license from the Basketball or Horseriding Federation... You'll have to give your criminal record, though. Furthermore, that license can be revoked if you don't show up at least 3 times a year in a shooting range. But that's it.

If you want to buy and drive a car, you have to fill paperwork, pass a written exam about the regulations and stuff, then take the driving exam. Add some more paperwork, you have your license now. Buy a car, fill some more paperwork to have your registration plates, and then fill more paperwork for the (mandatory) insurance. Some crimes can prevent you from taking the exam for a couple years: you really, really don't want to get caught while driving under the influence if you need that truck driving license.

All in all, in some countries, it may be easier to have a gun than a car. Most people are still afraid of guns and stay away from them.

I am aware that the laws are different in every country, and I am aware that knowledge of US gun laws is something that people elsewhere may not be familiar with.

Here buying a firearm that utilizes a round larger than .50BMG is usually very problematic as the rounds themselves are considered "destructive devices" and each one is not only very expensive, but must also be registered with the ATF. With regards to firing a .50BMG it is expensive, and most ranges are not set up to accommodate them . Because of this is it common for them to be used on expansive private ranges. There is a considerable amount of skill involved in distance shooting. The requirements for less powerful firearms vary from State to State, some mandate training others leave it discretionary.

Owning firearms isn't for everyone. Members of my family back home in Ireland won't pick up a gun, others have gone shooting with us here in the US. Owning a firearm is not something that, in my opinion, should be forced upon anyone who is eligible. In the same vein that right should not be striped from those eligible to exercise it either.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The issue here is not the object. The issue here was the decision to leave the object with the child. There is risk associated with every human activity, I do not see how we remove human responsibility from every action or decision made by humans.

Well you can start by admitting that humans are inherently fallible, and then removing opportunities for them to cause deaths through error. This has worked for airline safety, it worked to some extent for road safety (separating cars from pedestrians), and the concept is gaining support in medical procedures.

 Smacks wrote:
So she might have got robbed, but instead she died, and a firearm was discharged by a kid. So again I will say that I think the risks outweighed the rewards, in this case.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

It is not really hindsight. We've had this conversation before, when that woman was alive. I told you accidents would continue to happen, and now she is dead, and it was preventable.

Even if she had been robbed, was the gun really going to save her? (even if it hadn't been in her bag). She was surrounded by children (I read somewhere that it was 4 kids?) retreat was going to be her best option in nearly every eventuality. The only purpose the gun seemed to serve was adding an extra element of danger to her shopping trip.

 Smacks wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
The issue here is not the object. The issue here was the decision to leave the object with the child. There is risk associated with every human activity, I do not see how we remove human responsibility from every action or decision made by humans.

Well you can start by admitting that humans are inherently fallible, and then removing opportunities for them to cause deaths through error. This has worked for airline safety, it worked to some extent for road safety (separating cars from pedestrians), and the concept is gaining support in medical procedures.

In that case, you're effectively arguing to re-instate the Prohibition.

 whembly wrote:
In that case, you're effectively arguing to re-instate the Prohibition.

No I'm not, that's a rather obvious strawman. There is a lot of middle-ground between unrestricted and completely banned. I see nothing wrong with making alcohol consumption safer where possible though.

 Smacks wrote:
Well you can start by admitting that humans are inherently fallible, and then removing opportunities for them to cause deaths through error. This has worked for airline safety, it worked to some extent for road safety (separating cars from pedestrians), and the concept is gaining support in medical procedures.

I never denied human fallibility, what I said was that the risk cannot be eliminated. Even in aviation safety mistakes happen - airplanes crash, and accidents happen. It is interesting that you mention medical procedures though, as more people die per year from medical procedures than firearms

 Smacks wrote:
It is not really hindsight. We've had this conversation before, when that woman was alive. I told you accidents would continue to happen, and now she is dead, and it was preventable.

It was preventable by not leaving the firearm where the child could readily access it. That is the direct result of the deceased's actions.

 Smacks wrote:
Even if she had been robbed, was the gun really going to save her? (even if it hadn't been in her bag). She was surrounded by children (I read somewhere that it was 4 kids?) retreat was going to be her best option in nearly every eventuality. The only purpose the gun seemed to serve was adding an extra element of danger to her shopping trip.

Yes, the gun may very well have saved her as it has saved countless others. Retreating with four children in the face of an aggressor is not a viable defensive strategy, you are distracted, exposed, and vulnerable.

Well you can start by admitting that humans are inherently fallible, and then removing opportunities for them to cause deaths through error.

Ah the swan song of the Nanny state. You forgot 'won't someone think of the children."
Humans are inherently fallible. if we just locked them in individual rubberized cells they would be completely safe. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Even in aviation safety mistakes happen - airplanes crash, and accidents happen. It is interesting that you mention medical procedures though, as more people die per year from medical procedures than firearms

Airplanes crash a lot less than though, it is now (arguably) the safest way to travel. Medical procedures obviously involve risk, but the rewards are far greater than not having medical procedures.

When I compare America to countries with less guns I do not see that you are reaping the rewards of having so many guns. It appears rather you have a gun problem, too many gun crimes, too many gun accidents. The cons seem to outweigh the pros, and that is not even accounting for the fact that most of the pros are directly tied to the gun problem.

It was preventable by not leaving the firearm where the child could readily access it. That is the direct result of the deceased's actions.

As I have already said. human error is not preventable. Better to limit and control the source of danger.

Even if she had been robbed, was the gun really going to save her? (even if it hadn't been in her bag). She was surrounded by children (I read somewhere that it was 4 kids?) retreat was going to be her best option in nearly every eventuality. The only purpose the gun seemed to serve was adding an extra element of danger to her shopping trip.

Yes, the gun may very well have saved her as it has saved countless others. Retreating with four children in the face of an aggressor is not a viable defensive strategy, you are distracted, exposed, and vulnerable.

It may have saved her, and I suppose pigs may fly. More likely someone steals her bag and her gun with it, or she sees a crime and should not get involved (considering she is looking after 4 kids). The kind of event where the gun might prove useful (spree killer in Walmart) is so rare that it seems less likely than just having an accident with the gun. And even spree killers wouldn't be such an issue if you didn't have gun problem, which bring me back to my first point: there is really no direct benefit to living in a society with so many guns.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
.....

 Smacks wrote:
Even if she had been robbed, was the gun really going to save her? (even if it hadn't been in her bag). She was surrounded by children (I read somewhere that it was 4 kids?) retreat was going to be her best option in nearly every eventuality. The only purpose the gun seemed to serve was adding an extra element of danger to her shopping trip.

Yes, the gun may very well have saved her as it has saved countless others. Retreating with four children in the face of an aggressor is not a viable defensive strategy, you are distracted, exposed, and vulnerable.

Doesn't it strike you as the least bit odd that you live in a country where people have to think about this to go shopping?

Nappies and wipes, check. Car keys and bags for life, check. Change for parking and shopping trolley, check. Cheque book, purse and house keys, check. Firearm and ammunition, check. Off we go kids.

I know that there has been some criticism from Americans about Europeans making comments about your culture, but this is why. To us it is utterly bizarre, almost incomprehensible that anyone should feel the need to arm themselves routinely to perform daily routine tasks. Does it not make you think about the society that has been created where people feel they should arm themselves with lethal force to nip out to shop for groceries? Has it always been this way? I'm fairly sure I don't remember such strong feeling about it, or even noticing it in the 80's
I was surprised by how some Americans of my acquaintance actually felt so strongly about this particular amendment that it was indistinguishable from being an American, to criticise it, was to criticise America. They didn't appear to feel as strongly about other parts of the constitution.

Clarify "so many guns"

To many pistols?
To many revolvers?
To many carbines?
To many shotguns?
To many rifles?

This was a safety issue. She took the weapon being safe in her purse for granted.

Edit
I have had three soldiers hospitalized in Germany from "mugging's"
I have had one soldier come back from England to be hospitalized from a "mugging"

No country free from anyone from any crime

 Frazzled wrote:

Well you can start by admitting that humans are inherently fallible, and then removing opportunities for them to cause deaths through error.

Ah the swan song of the Nanny state. You forgot 'won't someone think of the children."
Humans are inherently fallible. if we just locked them in individual rubberized cells they would be completely safe. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

I'm not sure the parents of the children of Sandy Hook would agree that it is anything to do with the Nanny state.

If any tragedy could have swayed public opinion on firearms I would have thought it would have been that. Instead the greatest fear was that someone would try and take the firearms away.

 r_squared wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Well you can start by admitting that humans are inherently fallible, and then removing opportunities for them to cause deaths through error.

Ah the swan song of the Nanny state. You forgot 'won't someone think of the children."
Humans are inherently fallible. if we just locked them in individual rubberized cells they would be completely safe. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Sandy Hook.

Norway topped that one

Hungerford came in close, but in the UK we acted on it, and did our best to make sure it couldn't happen again. So far we have been lucky that it hasn't.

 r_squared wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Well you can start by admitting that humans are inherently fallible, and then removing opportunities for them to cause deaths through error.

Ah the swan song of the Nanny state. You forgot 'won't someone think of the children."
Humans are inherently fallible. if we just locked them in individual rubberized cells they would be completely safe. WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

Sandy Hook.

already illegal

7/7
laws didn't stop that either.

 r_squared wrote:
Hungerford came in close, but in the UK we acted on it, and did our best to make sure it couldn't happen again. So far we have been lucky that it hasn't.

In this type of situation using the word "luck" is not used. Its "time"

 r_squared wrote:
.
To us it is utterly bizarre, almost incomprehensible that anyone should feel the need to arm themselves routinely to perform daily routine tasks..

Cool.

I feel the same way about people that schedule tea breaks into their daily schedule.

I guess we can all find things to disagree on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 r_squared wrote:



If any tragedy could have swayed public opinion on firearms I would have thought it would have been that. Instead the greatest fear was that someone would try and take the firearms away.

Oh, don't you worry. Bloomberg and his ilk tried. Fortunately there are enough people in the US that care about our civil liberties and realize that criminals will break laws regardless of how much you try and defrock law abiding citizens of their rights that the laws don't pass.

 cincydooley wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
.
To us it is utterly bizarre, almost incomprehensible that anyone should feel the need to arm themselves routinely to perform daily routine tasks..

Cool.

I feel the same way about people that schedule tea breaks into their daily schedule.

That's shame. Tea is delicious. Bullets don't taste nearly as good.

 djones520 wrote:
Does anyone know what type of gun it was?

I'm looking at my two year olds hands, and with the safety features on my handgun, it would be physically impossible for her to fire it. Her hand just isn't large enough.

So I'm curious what the woman was carrying.

I don't know, but I'd like to speculate. Dreadclaw speculated a Ruger in 380, so presumably he meant the Ruger LCP, which would have been my first guess too. I just googled though and it looks like that's a 5lb trigger pull.

My next guess was a S&W bodyguard in .380, but that looks like an 8lb trigger pull.

Taurus TCP in .380 is 4.8lbs.

Kahr P380 is 5.2lbs.

Now I'm pretty curious as well. 3lbs is a super light trigger. my 9mm is 6lbs and my 1911 is 5lbs. I wonder if she had a trigger job?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
Sorry to drag everyone back to the original topic, but has anyone commented on the fact that the deceased was a nuclear scientist at the Idaho National Laboratory?


It would appear that responsible gun ownership isn't exactly rocket science, but seems to be more difficult than nuclear science.

 Chongara wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
.
To us it is utterly bizarre, almost incomprehensible that anyone should feel the need to arm themselves routinely to perform daily routine tasks..

Cool.

I feel the same way about people that schedule tea breaks into their daily schedule.

That's shame. Tea is delicious. Bullets don't taste nearly as good.

Tea doesn't put delightful holes in paper or make clay pigeons explode.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 r_squared wrote:
.
To us it is utterly bizarre, almost incomprehensible that anyone should feel the need to arm themselves routinely to perform daily routine tasks..

Cool.

I feel the same way about people that schedule tea breaks into their daily schedule.

That's shame. Tea is delicious. Bullets don't taste nearly as good.

Tea doesn't put delightful holes in paper or make clay pigeons explode.

Or kill deer. Yummy tasty deer.

 Ouze wrote:

Kahr P380 is 5.2lbs.

Now I'm pretty curious as well. 3lbs is a super light trigger. my 9mm is 6lbs and my 1911 is 5lbs. I wonder if she had a trigger job?

Has to be, right?

I would have banked on a Glock G26, but the standard pull on that is 5.5lbs.

 Smacks wrote:
It appears rather you have a gun problem, too many gun crimes, too many gun accidents. The cons seem to outweigh the pros, and that is not even accounting for the fact that most of the pros are directly tied to the gun problem.

Better to limit and control the source of danger.

It may have saved her, and I suppose pigs may fly.

And even spree killers wouldn't be such an issue if you didn't have gun problem, which bring me back to my first point: there is really no direct benefit to living in a society with so many guns.

I am going to excuse myself from discussing this further with you. You are very clearly set in your view towards firearms, the laws that allow people to own them, and the society in the US and it's relationship with guns and you seem quite content with that. There is nothing to be gained from continuing this conversation.

 r_squared wrote:
Doesn't it strike you as the least bit odd that you live in a country where people have to think about this to go shopping?

Nappies and wipes, check. Car keys and bags for life, check. Change for parking and shopping trolley, check. Cheque book, purse and house keys, check. Firearm and ammunition, check. Off we go kids.

Crime happens. Violent crime happens. Why should law abiding citizens be denied the right and the ability to defend themselves?

 r_squared wrote:
I know that there has been some criticism from Americans about Europeans making comments about your culture, but this is why. To us it is utterly bizarre, almost incomprehensible that anyone should feel the need to arm themselves routinely to perform daily routine tasks. Does it not make you think about the society that has been created where people feel they should arm themselves with lethal force to nip out to shop for groceries? Has it always been this way? I'm fairly sure I don't remember such strong feeling about it, or even noticing it in the 80's
I was surprised by how some Americans of my acquaintance actually felt so strongly about this particular amendment that it was indistinguishable from being an American, to criticise it, was to criticise America. They didn't appear to feel as strongly about other parts of the constitution.

Speaking as someone who isn't American a lot of it comes down to people not understanding the US and it's laws and saying that it would be better if it were more civilized, or better if it were more like X. Americans have a very strong sense of individualism. If you tell them that they have to do something do not be surprised if they do the exact opposite. Also when lawful gun owners are constantly vilified, derided, treated as potential criminals, and continually have to justify their reasons to exercise their rights then it gets a little wearisome.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Americans have a very strong sense of individualism. If you tell them that they have to do something do not be surprised if they do the exact opposite.

We're a stubborn bunch... eh?



It's absolutely the truth too!

 Jihadin wrote:

 Matthew wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Matthew wrote:
Clap, clap clap.

Well done, 'Murica. Why can't you just get rid of those dumb gun laws?

Our gun laws are fine, thanks.

Amounts of school shootings in the US since 2000: Over 30
Amounts of school shootings in Sweden ever, where gun laws are strict: 0. Ever.
I think some stricter gun laws would be better. Just this, an infant murdering his/her mother. Or, that time a little girl shot a firearms instructor to death because of the recoil on an SMG. WHY WOULD A LITTLE KID EVEN NEED TO KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A GUN!?!?

SMG was a Uzi I believe
I taught a bunch of Boy Scouts how to shoot an Assault Rifle (M4/AR15) and weapon safety, muzzle awareness, breathing technique, and how to zero the weapon
Another trained them on a 9mm

So your saying I've trained a bunch of killers eh?

No, I'm saying that children don't need to know how to handle guns.

 Matthew wrote:


No, I'm saying that children don't need to know how to handle guns.

Firstly, I'm saying its none of your business.

Second, there are plenty of reasons that it's perfectly fine to teach young people how to shoot.

 Matthew wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:

 Matthew wrote:

 cincydooley wrote:

 Matthew wrote:
Clap, clap clap.

Well done, 'Murica. Why can't you just get rid of those dumb gun laws?

Our gun laws are fine, thanks.

Amounts of school shootings in the US since 2000: Over 30
Amounts of school shootings in Sweden ever, where gun laws are strict: 0. Ever.
I think some stricter gun laws would be better. Just this, an infant murdering his/her mother. Or, that time a little girl shot a firearms instructor to death because of the recoil on an SMG. WHY WOULD A LITTLE KID EVEN NEED TO KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A GUN!?!?

SMG was a Uzi I believe
I taught a bunch of Boy Scouts how to shoot an Assault Rifle (M4/AR15) and weapon safety, muzzle awareness, breathing technique, and how to zero the weapon
Another trained them on a 9mm

So your saying I've trained a bunch of killers eh?

No, I'm saying that children don't need to know how to handle guns.

That's nice.

 cincydooley wrote:

 Matthew wrote:


Amounts of school shootings in the US since 2000: Over 30
Amounts of school shootings in Sweden ever, where gun laws are strict: 0. Ever.
I think some stricter gun laws would be better. Just this, an infant murdering his/her mother. Or, that time a little girl shot a firearms instructor to death because of the recoil on an SMG. WHY WOULD A LITTLE KID EVEN NEED TO KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A GUN!?!?

Our gun laws are fine, thanks.

I couldn't give a bulls tit about the number of shootings in Sweden, quite frankly.

And both of those deaths were due to severe negligence on part of the adult.

But, it wouldn't've happened if people understood that, I quote myself,

WHY WOULD A LITTLE KID EVEN NEED TO KNOW HOW TO HANDLE A GUN!?!?

I wouldn't say that your gun laws are fine. I took Sweden as an example, because we have excellent gun laws. No school shootings. You know something's wrong with a country, when I don't get surprised when I hear about yet another school shooting. Why can't Obama get off his otherwise awesome bottom, and fix the problem?

 Ouze wrote:
I don't know, but I'd like to speculate. Dreadclaw speculated a Ruger in 380, so presumably he meant the Ruger LCP, which would have been my first guess too. I just googled though and it looks like that's a 5lb trigger pull.

My next guess was a S&W bodyguard in .380, but that looks like an 8lb trigger pull.

Taurus TCP in .380 is 4.8lbs.

Kahr P380 is 5.2lbs.

Now I'm pretty curious as well. 3lbs is a super light trigger. my 9mm is 6lbs and my 1911 is 5lbs. I wonder if she had a trigger job?

Trigger modification seems to be the most likely. The lowest trigger pull I can find easily is a Glock 35 at 3lb, but it is a competition gun and is perhaps too large for concealed carry. Everything else is 5+ pounds. I think we can probably rule out most DA/SA pistols too