Connecticut School Tragedy

Got something to talk about? Be it video games, other tabletop or card games, even random stuff - this is the place to post!

Moderator: The Dread Knights

User avatar
Omnichron
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1378
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:10 pm
Location: Norway

Post by Omnichron »

The country I live in, Norway, is one of the most peaceful countries, where no one carries guns (except a few criminals), and I never feel afraid of getting shot, and almost never afraid of getting robbed. Sure, a pocket thief might take my wallet, but I've lived in the "most dangerous" areas of our capital city for 4 years with the wallet in my back pocket, without any incidents.

However, the 22. of July, one crazy guy did the worst attacks in Norwegian history since the second world war. 8 people dying in the carbomb he left at the government quarter before he went to the island Utøya and killed 69 youths with a semi-automatic gun.

He got this gun legally as he had a hunting license and no criminal record after failed attempts to buy weapons from abroad. Many other has guns like like that because they have the same hunting lincenses and no criminal records... but they don't go on a killing rampage.

"Guns don't kill people, people kill people"... this is true enough, although if the madman Anders Breivik hadn't managed to get his hands on these guns, he wouldn't have been able to do the attacks on Utøya as easily as he did. He would have to obtain his guns through criminals, and then the police might have caught him in his planning phase. Instead, he had done nothing wrong until the very attack, so the police didn't know about him at all.

Such people will do these things again, somewhere in the world... yes, THEY are the reasons for the attacks, but why do we make it so easy for these people by giving access to guns for everyone who really wants? By limiting the access to guns, these guys have a harder time getting their hands on such weapons, and police would have an easier time preventing such attack from happening.

As for the US citizens. It's in their culture, so removing guns would not only be met with anger from many, but as there are so many guns out there, it'd be almost impossible to do anything about it.

And when it comes to spending more resources on the mentally sick, how can you prevent them from getting guns somehow in a society filled with guns? Locking them up entirely for something they might do? Mental sickness isn't something you can fix just like that, so there will be mentally sick people who lives amongst us.
Personal quote: "It's better to do little damage and lose nothing than to do lots of damage and lose everything."
Final tournament score for 7th DE book in 8th edition - W/D/L: 25/5/10
User avatar
Rork
Lord of Khorne
Lord of Khorne
Posts: 8432
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:29 pm
Location: Leading the revolution (and in the chat).

Post by Rork »

saintofm wrote:
Quick question for the Australian and UK members, has violent crime gone down significantly since gun bans in your country or is it about the same? And are the illegal weapons still available and on black markets and such (as with much of the IRA's weapons).


The UK has never had much of a gun culture - For the most part they are a rich man's toy or a farmer's tool with the hobbyists generally owning air rifles. The statistics on this show that gun crime in general is decreasing and has done since the early 2000s (a few years after the handgun ban).

The two major gun massacres of the last 20 years in the UK - Hungerford and Dunblane - have both resulted in changes to the gun laws, with the Dunblane school massacre generating public calls for the banning of handguns, which happened. These 'infamous' gun crimes have all been carried out by people who had licences to own the guns they used - but resulted in the only guns that are legal being rifles and shotguns which can't be automatic.

While there is no doubt a black market, since the supply is so small the amount of gun crime is consequently lower (it accounts for 0.3% of all crime in the UK).
Image

"Rork.. a wonderful guy :)" - Linda Lobsta Defenda

+++ Team Mulligans +++
User avatar
Red...
Generalissimo
Posts: 3750
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:09 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Red... »

Most notably, there was little if any use of guns by either side during the London riots. In fact, the government refused calls by the public to give its police guns to combat the rioters, even using rubber bullets or other non-lethal ammunition. To have a civil disturbance on that scale without any real levels of gun violence was impressive and, I think, speaks to the benefit of a low number of guns within society.
"While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. So answer the question."

Don't be a munchkin?

Image

I am an Extraordinary Druchii Gentleman
User avatar
Loki
Brolock
Brolock
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Keeping an eye on Rork and Calisson
Contact:

Post by Loki »

But as Rork said, the gun culture in the UK has always been significantly different than the one in the US, you've always had lower amounts of firearms, the way your government works also has contributed to a more unified approach, compared to every state in the US having a different set of laws. I offer this question, for those of you proposing stricter gun controls in the US, what would you ban or tighten down on and how would you do it? Remember if you want to ban semiautomatic weapons, you're talking about removing the personal property of thousands of citizens.
+++ Team Mulligans +++

Image

FAQ
User avatar
Dyvim tvar
Lord of the Dragon Caves
Lord of the Dragon Caves
Posts: 8372
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 6:34 pm
Location: The Dragon Caves of the Underway (Indianapolis IN)
Contact:

Post by Dyvim tvar »

Australia did it after a mass shooting there, and their gun culture was similar to that in the US. Worked for them pretty well.
Truly These are the End Times ...
User avatar
Red...
Generalissimo
Posts: 3750
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:09 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Red... »

Interestingly, though, Loki, the U.S. does apply disarmament practices for small weapons inside other states, both within UN supported peacekeeping missions and...err...non UN supported interventions. So it does have experience of disarming small weapons from other gun prolific cultures...a case of 'do what I say not what I do?'
"While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. So answer the question."

Don't be a munchkin?

Image

I am an Extraordinary Druchii Gentleman
User avatar
Calisson
Corsair
Corsair
Posts: 8820
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:00 pm
Location: Hag Graef

Post by Calisson »

Guns control depends on what are guns used for.
Guns can be controlled, users can be controlled.

- hunting and sports:
=> Get a licence, which will be given under conditions, just like a pilot licence. Could be denied to people with a history of violence or mental health disorders.
=> store the weapons in a safe location: sports club, hunting club.
=> semi-automatic guns and guns with lots of ammo seem not necessary for hunting and could be restriced to sport clubs.
=> alternatively, house storage for hunting guns could be allowed with a licence given to those who offer the guarantees such as what Loki has said: weapons and ammo in separate safes, access locked with key+code...

- self defense:
The US approach is to shoot and risk to kill an innocent just because of a suspect attitude. Doesn't it incite the burglar to shoot you first?
The alternative in Europe is to call the police. If the police is late, you've lost a few objects. Call your insurance.
If the intruder came for rape, then non-lethal weapons work.
If the intruder came not for stealing or raping but to kill you... wait, does it ever happen?

US citizens seem to claim that they can compare to policemen and military people.
But these armed force people go through specific training, not only about how to use technically their weapons, but also about when it is allowed to use them. And they are under oath to use their weapons only on duty.
If the lack of safety in an area justifies the call for auxiliary sheriffs, why not? In that case, they should be selected amongst the voluntary, not self-appointed. They should be examined. Their weapons should be kept as safely as military weapons.
Winds never stop blowing, Oceans are borderless. Get a ship and a crew, so the World will be ours! Today the World, tomorrow Nagg! {--|oBrotherhood of the Coast!o|--}
User avatar
Rork
Lord of Khorne
Lord of Khorne
Posts: 8432
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:29 pm
Location: Leading the revolution (and in the chat).

Post by Rork »

Loki wrote: I offer this question, for those of you proposing stricter gun controls in the US, what would you ban or tighten down on and how would you do it? Remember if you want to ban semiautomatic weapons, you're talking about removing the personal property of thousands of citizens.


It's not a matter of snapping your fingers and declaring them illegal. Even the authorities are going to know that removing automatic weapons from a population of 300 million is going to take a while to achieve.

I think you'd need a clear "lead in" time - give owners warning that the law is clearly changing and their weapons are no longer legal. Then offer an amnesty - owners should be able to take their weapons to specific places (e.g. police stations etc) to get rid of their guns over a period of months. The authorities could equally be proactive by attending guns shows and such so they receive weapons there (and continue to get the message out).

I would also assume that in some states records on ownership are kept...at least somewhere (but given the varying rules on guns in the US, this would not be universally applicable).

By this point the authorities have said "On this date these guns are illegal and we'll prosecute any owners". There will be those who don't hand them over (for whatever reason), but my feeling is that the vast majority of law-abiding Americans would comply (assuming the whole issue doesn't become an ideological football).
Image

"Rork.. a wonderful guy :)" - Linda Lobsta Defenda

+++ Team Mulligans +++
User avatar
Loki
Brolock
Brolock
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Keeping an eye on Rork and Calisson
Contact:

Post by Loki »

@Red: Irrelevant to this conversation.

@Rork: That poses significant legal issues in and of itself. We're talking about taking things that cost, in some cases, thousands of dollars from a person. I've never studied the constitution in a legal sense, other than in history classes, so I don't know if one would be able to apply eminent domain to the personal property that isn't land, or whether this would fall under the case of an ex post facto law.

Also, having trouble finding more recent statistics, so forgive me if you find something newer, but semiautomatic rifles, what are typically called assault rifles, are used only in 3-5% of all homicides. Where as handguns were used in 57%. I an unable to look up what percentage were done with a single shot or killed a single person, basically what would account for the semiauto being the most easily accessible gun to the person, rather than picked for the purpose of its ability to fire quickly.
+++ Team Mulligans +++

Image

FAQ
User avatar
Red...
Generalissimo
Posts: 3750
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:09 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Red... »

@Loki, actually completely relevant, thanks for the dismissal though. You said the UK didn't have a culture of guns, so I pointed out that the US has applied a policy of disarmament in other countries that do have a heritage of small gun owernship, such as several locations in central America and even Afghanistan. How can you claim the US should be treated differently with regards to gun control because it has a culture of it, when in fact we know that the US makes people in other countries with histories of gun ownership give up their arms? Dismiss my point again if you feel that you must, but I stand by the fact it is both relevant and value-adding.
Last edited by Red... on Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. So answer the question."

Don't be a munchkin?

Image

I am an Extraordinary Druchii Gentleman
User avatar
Loki
Brolock
Brolock
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Keeping an eye on Rork and Calisson
Contact:

Post by Loki »

Because you are talking about peace keeping actions or war. Which is a very different situation than talking about permanent gun control laws in the country. When every day citizens are shot at as much as US soldiers were in Iraq, then that will be a relevant conversation.

EDIT: But I apologize, I did not mean to just dismiss it outright and meant no offense. Just trying to keep up with all the responses, I think its about 7 on 1 now ;)
+++ Team Mulligans +++

Image

FAQ
User avatar
Red...
Generalissimo
Posts: 3750
Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 3:09 pm
Location: Baltimore

Post by Red... »

So your perspective then would be that the US should confiscate the guns within these areas and then give them back out? You're saying that when the U.S. recently left Iraq that it should have given back out all the weapons? (BTW, more American citizens are shot every year in America than U.S. Soldiers were shot in Iraq each year IIRC)

Edit, yeah, I apologise too, it's been a long day and my mother-in-law is staying with us, so I'm a bit more tetchy than usual! I also appreciate this is a bit of a digression, so will happily leave off :)
"While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers. So answer the question."

Don't be a munchkin?

Image

I am an Extraordinary Druchii Gentleman
User avatar
xFallenx
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1255
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:04 am
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Post by xFallenx »

Loki wrote:The alcohol/tobacco point wasn't to say we should focus on those rather than guns because they kill more people, but more to say that saying you only want to get rid of guns to save lives is a bit of trying to get morality on your side to make the other side look like they want the opposite point (if we disagree on something and you want to save lives, then by logic (somewhat crappy logic) it would go that I don't want to save lives).


It’s not my intention to gain the moral high ground Loki, I promise. These societal issues are bigger then you & I. I’m not perfect & nor do I have the perfect solution; I can just see that there has to be a better way. When something is obviously not working, it’s time to take steps at solving the issue, not turn a blind eye and assume change will come on its own. Morality is a personal issue for all of us. Me trying to fit anyone into my mold of morality is never going to work, nothing raises hackles faster than telling someone their idea of morality is skewed. So, to me it’s not a moral issue per se, it’s an issue of societal evolution & rational mankind. There is no civilized need for auto/semi-auto weapons & handguns. You want to use those weapons, join the military, they will get a variation of all three in your hands as soon as you sign up. Trouble is, most owners want the thrill without the risk, so in that case I suggest Call of Duty

Loki wrote:If it were only about saving lives, there are many more things people would care about than that. The US has one the highest gun homicide rates per capita of any industrialized nation, but it also has the highest guns per 100 citizens of any nation (at 89 guns per 100 citizens). If you determine the amount of gun homicide rate per gun in a country, the US drops down to a level that is more on keel with the rest of the industrialized world.

Your stats pretty accurate, but your interpretation is misleading. Unfortunately there isn’t a global consensus that is usable for your example. The data excludes China, Russia (both of which would have dubious info at best) majority of Africa & the middle east. Forgetting that & working with info we do have access to, the US is safer then South Africa, Brazil (& Northern SA countries) as well as central America. The US is on par with the southern part of South America & two small countries in Africa. It lags behind all of Europe, India, & a few other Asian countries, including Vietnam, & 5 countries in Africa. The US lags behind a few third world countries, a shocking amount of second world countries and a majority of the first world countries. Not exactly what I would call ‘on keel’
Loki wrote:If I would use the alcohol issue to make a point, and again its not a perfect analogy, when the US wanted to lower the number of fatalities due to drunk driving, it cracked down on those driving drunk and on the other illegal acts of alcohol, underage drinking and purchasing alcohol for minors, it didn't crack down on those who were drinking legally and responsibly.

Again, as this is unrelated to the gun issue, the argument is completely out of context & only serves as a counter argument that blurs the gun issue. An apple cannot be held up to an orange for comparison further then the fact they are both fruit. Irresponsible gun ownership/use & irresponsible alcohol consumption/use are only comparable in the fact that they are both issues that need to be addressed. In the case you raise, the alcohol issue has (is) been (being) addressed, again that can be argued either way.
Loki wrote:I would suffer anything that would help keep guns out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, as long as I can continue on as I am.


This here invalidates a majority of that paragraph. It simply states that you, in fact, will do nothing to change the way things are. That is the issue at hand. “So long as everyone else changes & I don’t have to, it’s a ok with me” It’s completely impossible to have an open discussion with that attitude, we both agreed that my brides parents have questionable storage habits, but the bigger point is that where there is one example of negligence, you will have many more. Loki, your arguments are for gun popularity, which is a selfish standpoint, they have no use. I challenge you to come up with why Handguns, Auto/semi auto & assault rifles/guns were created & apply those needs to an average American citizen. That would provide context.

As far as a proposal, off the top of my head, Semi auto, auto & handguns having no real worldly use, should be catalogued & stored within firing ranges monitored by Law officials. Owners can head to the range to play with their toys in a safe environment & turn them in at the end of the night. Single shot long barrel hunting weapons can by kept in the home to cover the culture/hunting/hobby needs. This way if they are stolen, possible victims have a better chance to get out of harm’s way.
Calisson wrote:And I may be all the more concerned that one son is dating an American girl that I shall meet soon.

My bride is American, and as said by Red: “It’s all worth it” She, and many of her friends, are dynamic, generous and good humored. That being said, mine is also very stubborn, occasionally selfish & regularly brash. I wouldn’t want her any other way.
saintofm wrote:I'm going to look at banning guns in the smae way the US banned booze back in the 20's and start of the 30's. The reasons was to protect people from the drunken idiots who would cause all kinds of problem from disorderly conduct, to physical abuse of spouse and children, to homicide. However criminal elements had taken over, with the various mobs and gangs fighting it out over the lucritve substance. When that ban was lifted they had moved on to blackmailing closeted gays, kept up the gambling rings from the good ol' days, and moved into other illicit drugs both in delivery and production.

Weapons will be the same way.

The woman’s temperance league was a part of the reason. Another was to send a message to Germany prior to & after the First World War in order to keep founding from finding its way into an enemy’s hands. There are great many reasons prohibition was legislated as well as fell from favor. Boardwalk Empire only addresses the one stance. There are many more out there, but again, the two are nontransferable & off topic.


I'm sorry you're getting it from all sides Loki & I hope you aren't taking these arguments personally. You're a good sport & I have to say I'm extremely impressed that this hasn't turned into a flame war like some many of the other blogs/sites/forums I've been reading.
User avatar
Rork
Lord of Khorne
Lord of Khorne
Posts: 8432
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:29 pm
Location: Leading the revolution (and in the chat).

Post by Rork »

Loki wrote:
Also, having trouble finding more recent statistics, so forgive me if you find something newer, but semiautomatic rifles, what are typically called assault rifles, are used only in 3-5% of all homicides. Where as handguns were used in 57%. I an unable to look up what percentage were done with a single shot or killed a single person, basically what would account for the semiauto being the most easily accessible gun to the person, rather than picked for the purpose of its ability to fire quickly.


I think that takes into account the matter of need, though. Does a citizen need an assault weapon? Realistically, no - for the purposes of self-defence a pistol (perhaps an unfortunate side-effect of your statistics) or shotgun is more practical.

There is also the issue of the government governing with the consent of the people (and as such the citizenry has the right to overthrow them), but US democracy has matured to the point where that isn't really necessary or, again, realistic.

Gun restrictions have to start somewhere. While the US may always have guns as part of its society, their role may just become solely practical (in the hunting sense) than cultural.
Image

"Rork.. a wonderful guy :)" - Linda Lobsta Defenda

+++ Team Mulligans +++
User avatar
Loki
Brolock
Brolock
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Keeping an eye on Rork and Calisson
Contact:

Post by Loki »

Thanks, I don't take it personally, though I won't say I don't have any emotion behind it, I do own several guns and use them on a regular basis, both to hunt and for recreational shooting. I know it's not the same at all, but I feel as strongly about it as if someone were arguing to take away your warhammer minis, or at least the dark elf ones ;)

I didn't say I wouldn't change, what I didn't want to change was the end result. I would be willing to go through more strenuous background checks and wait periods, I just want the same final result I have for myself, a responsible gun owner to own firearms as I do now.
+++ Team Mulligans +++

Image

FAQ
User avatar
Saintofm
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1755
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:28 am
Location: California

Post by Saintofm »

You know, I just thought of something really horific and I hope this won't be the case.

In three to six (3-6) months, the media will stop talking about this. We wait another five or 10 (5 or 10) years, and wala wash rince and repeat. As much as I want to think of something different, for crying out loud something will happen to divert the attention of the massess, we will forget about this and all the plans of making sure this never happens again, or get too comfortable with the ones we have and get lax with them, and wait for the next nightmare.

That that sent a chill down my spine. Am I worry about nothing, or are the masses really that stupid these days?
Who needs sanity? I have a Hydra
User avatar
xFallenx
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1255
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 1:04 am
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Contact:

Post by xFallenx »

No Saint, you're absolutely right & that's part of the overall tragedy for sure.
Here'a a haunting link to mass shootings from all over the world(reported):
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html
There are 79 incidents, 17 of which happened outside of the US leaving 62 inside the US between 1996-2012.
Oct 2013-Current: 3-2-0
User avatar
Loki
Brolock
Brolock
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Keeping an eye on Rork and Calisson
Contact:

Post by Loki »

Perhaps this will sound overly emotionless, but I wish that list had stated what guns were used in each crime. I see a lot of hate on semiautomatic weapons, when they are used almost the least of all guns in shooting crimes. And while some of those were surely done with them, many were completely capable of being done with things such as a pump shotgun (if I take the magazine block out, mine holds 5 rounds and I can reload it in about 10 seconds.) This is a somewhat separate question, but if assault weapons are not used very frequently in crimes, then why do people jump on them as the first thing that needs to be gotten rid of?

Now its late so forgive me if I miscounted, but in that link, it seemed that about half to slightly more, 5 or less people were killed/wounded which is pretty much the standard capacity of most hunting rifles and shotguns. Also, I noticed a school shooting missing from there, the shooting at the Appalachian School of Law in 2002, where the gunman was subdued by 2 people who retrieved personal firearms from their cars. That one didn't really make the big news that I remember...
+++ Team Mulligans +++

Image

FAQ
User avatar
Calisson
Corsair
Corsair
Posts: 8820
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 10:00 pm
Location: Hag Graef

Post by Calisson »

Off topic:
xFallenx wrote:I'm extremely impressed that this hasn't turned into a flame war like some many of the other blogs/sites/forums I've been reading.
I had the very same feeling. Thank you all for the maturity of the discussion. I'm glad we can have it here.
There is always a risk of too heated an argument indeed.
This is where a neutral moderator is handy.
However, when four of us are webmaster or admins... it leaves of us to be all the more cautious.
Winds never stop blowing, Oceans are borderless. Get a ship and a crew, so the World will be ours! Today the World, tomorrow Nagg! {--|oBrotherhood of the Coast!o|--}
User avatar
Omnichron
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1378
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:10 pm
Location: Norway

Post by Omnichron »

@Loki: I doesn't really matter what weapons were used in my opinion. All guns should be restricted in my opinion... Those with hunting licenses should be allowed some rifles, although there should still be restrictions to what kinds.

There is no good reason to why civilians should have weapons. In that case where a gunman was shot before he could do much damage... it'd be better if none of the three had any guns.

Anyways, it'll take a lot of time and work to rid the civilians of the US for all their weapons... but it has to happen sooner or later.
Personal quote: "It's better to do little damage and lose nothing than to do lots of damage and lose everything."
Final tournament score for 7th DE book in 8th edition - W/D/L: 25/5/10
User avatar
Layne
Arnold Layne
Arnold Layne
Posts: 3398
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 1:44 am
Location: On Her Majesty Morathi's Secret Service

Post by Layne »

Loki wrote:This is a somewhat separate question, but if assault weapons are not used very frequently in crimes, then why do people jump on them as the first thing that needs to be gotten rid of?


Because they are for assault. I just don't see how any private citizen can claim the need to own an assault rifle. Is this person engaged in some kind recreational-assault type pursuit?

Dyvim Tvar wrote:Australia did it after a mass shooting there, and their gun culture was similar to that in the US. Worked for them pretty well.


After three mass shootings. Gun culture was nothing like the US. Australians have never had the right to bear arms, or even free speech while we're at it. And sure as goddamn no concealed weapons, not even knives. We had a lot of sportsmen and farmers, many of whom turned out to be the same people, who didn't like it and still don't. We occasionally turn out one who has been stashing/stockpiling their automatic weapons, by which we mean both full-auto and semi-auto, which are both banned.

Some of the sportsmen came out saying that they can shoot faster than any semi-auto with their bolt-action, and this argument was used to support both sides.

But in the end, it's a bit like saying Australia has a lucky hat that keeps mass shooters away. I think perhaps we just have less crazy people, which is nothing more than the law of averages at work.

That's all the facts I have on the issue. As to my opinion, I don't really see how recreation or hunting is a good argument for having guns about. Hunters find it well to go into the woods to shoot animals, and Adam Lanza finds it good to go into schools to shoot kids, if only to get a long run up to shooting himself. Personally I have a low opinion of both ; I don't really see why it is OK shoot animals for fun but not OK to shoot preschoolers for fun. What I do know is, no body shoots anybody, that hasn't got guns.

As to the responsible owners argument, it's a fact that responsible owners of slaves once used the same argument. There again, it's also a fact that a hundred fifty years later it's still somehow a problem.
Layne
Global Moderator. Everything but the weather.


Caveat Numptor.


Karonath - WS6 / S4 / T4 / D5 / I3
Equipment: Bloodfeather, heavy armour, helm, Sea Dragon Cloak, rope x 2, month rations x 2
Inventory: longspear, 2 short swords, glaive, winter gear, shade cloak,
Mount: Dark Steed (Shiny), talisman of kurnous
Gold: 2294
Skills: Ambidexterity, Controlled Frenzy, Basic Ride, Drukh Kaganth
Class: Khainite
User avatar
Rork
Lord of Khorne
Lord of Khorne
Posts: 8432
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:29 pm
Location: Leading the revolution (and in the chat).

Post by Rork »

Loki wrote:Perhaps this will sound overly emotionless, but I wish that list had stated what guns were used in each crime. I see a lot of hate on semiautomatic weapons, when they are used almost the least of all guns in shooting crimes. And while some of those were surely done with them, many were completely capable of being done with things such as a pump shotgun (if I take the magazine block out, mine holds 5 rounds and I can reload it in about 10 seconds.) This is a somewhat separate question, but if assault weapons are not used very frequently in crimes, then why do people jump on them as the first thing that needs to be gotten rid of?


If anything, Loki, I'd say your arguments make the case for even further gun restrictions. As we were discussing last night, pistols make up a large proportion of the weapons used in gun crime and as you pointed out a semi-auto pistol has a bigger magazine than a shotgun or rifle.

For me, that makes the case for pistols being restricted to revolvers (maybe even no higher than .22 calibre) alongside restrictions on more traditional hunting weapons.

It's a case of what a person needs - for self defence, competition or hunting - you don't need a weapon that is used by law enforcement or the military.

Restrictions do not eliminate gun crime or even massacres, but they make them less likely and harder to achieve. This has to be viewed as a long game - The US needs to look at what it really needs guns for over the course of decades, not just when people are killed en masse.

Loki wrote: Also, I noticed a school shooting missing from there, the shooting at the Appalachian School of Law in 2002, where the gunman was subdued by 2 people who retrieved personal firearms from their cars. That one didn't really make the big news that I remember...


I'd say that is a red herring. While armed citizens can intervene, there is no guarantee that will happen - either through fear, being in the wrong place or just simply not having their weapons. I expect that the number of these crimes ended by such means is sadly much lower than those ended by the police or the gunman's suicide.

(p.s. It's a brave person who kicks off in a thread that contains one webmaster, two admins and a moderator :lol:)
Image

"Rork.. a wonderful guy :)" - Linda Lobsta Defenda

+++ Team Mulligans +++
User avatar
Saintofm
Malekith's Best Friend
Posts: 1755
Joined: Sat Mar 19, 2011 2:28 am
Location: California

Post by Saintofm »

I can think of a legitimate reason for a pistol outside of home defense.

My brother goes hunting alot, and he keeps a pistol on him when he goes. He's using a bow, crossbow, or riffle for the intended target, but sometimes something gets in the way that needs a smaller gun.

For the most part that may mean rabid dog or mountain lion, and the nature of a smaller gun makes it quicker on the draw if they charge.

Other times it may depend on the state. I have a couple of cousins in Alaska who for several of their homemaking meetings with several of the other women in their church taught how to clean a 45 cal handgun. In bear country this is important as that's pretty much the only thing that will stop them. A gun shot is loud and strange enough to them to make em back off, and most of the time they do their own thing away from humans, but if they attack well things get messy real quick.
Who needs sanity? I have a Hydra
User avatar
Rork
Lord of Khorne
Lord of Khorne
Posts: 8432
Joined: Fri Nov 22, 2002 1:29 pm
Location: Leading the revolution (and in the chat).

Post by Rork »

Fair comment. Which I think still means the question of whether a semi-auto handgun is necessary. If calibre is important, is a revolver (of a decent calibre) enough for the vast majority of cases?
Image

"Rork.. a wonderful guy :)" - Linda Lobsta Defenda

+++ Team Mulligans +++
User avatar
Loki
Brolock
Brolock
Posts: 2296
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 3:41 am
Location: Keeping an eye on Rork and Calisson
Contact:

Post by Loki »

To add a little bit of laughs to the conversation check this out. Forewarning, its vulgar. Also, they're obviously a bit biased, but still raises some points. Probably the quote I enjoyed the most from it "If you deny a person the means of self-defense, you deny a person the right of self-defense"

Also, as to the argument that we should be allowed to own muskets, because thats what the founders had in mind, keep in mind that the muskets the the founders had in mind were the premier military weapons of the time. Also, I'll say that the government has the right to stop all internet news reporting on blogs of such, its neither spoken, nor pressed onto paper, so they obviously couldn't have meant for us to have the freedom ;)
+++ Team Mulligans +++

Image

FAQ
Post Reply