Another US School Shooting

[pirana 0]

Quote

Your comment, above, reveals how little you actually know about American gun laws. You have apparently been misled by your media about such things. So let me enlighten you. Most of the things on your wish list are already true.

Violent crimes and domestic abuse are already disqualifiers. If someone has unsound judgement, they usually develop a criminal record fairly quick in life, and that becomes a disqualifier. The purchaser of every gun sold by gun dealers is personally vetted by the FBI to see if he is qualified to own a gun.

The ban on assault rifles DID pass. It was in effect for 10 years, and then expired. Guess what? No change in gun crime rates occurred either after it was passed, or after it expired. It was meaningless symbolism.

And finally, your perception of the NRA is wrong, if for no other reason, because all of your other ideas are wrong. So, based upon a heap of false assumptions, you presume yet another untrue myth about the NRA.

Maybe I am misled. Certainly willing to stand corrected. Tell me more.

What are the crimes that disqualify a person from owning a gun? I'd always assumed any felony, but know people who have a lesser record and own a gun.

Also, you have a link to a site with crimes categorized by weapon? I find it hard to believe that in those 10 years there was no change in the number of crimes committed with assault rifles. Even if true, I still don't see why in the world anybody other than cops and soldiers needs an assault rifle.

I could be swayed, but would still come down on the side of people wanting a gun needing to prove they are worthy, not the government needing to prove the applicant is unworthy.

Kind of like drivers licenses. You need to pass written, driving, and visual exams. Considering the number of bad drivers this might be a poor example; but you probably get my drift. Do prospective gun owners need to demonstrate proficiency and knowledge prior to being able to buy a gun?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Well, if all kids were raised correctly, we wouldn't need to defend schools anyway.

congratulations, even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometime - but you still chose the miss the point again - keep on doing the maths

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Amazon 7]

Quote

congratulations, even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometime - but you still chose the miss the point again - keep on doing the maths

MMMMMMM POPCORN

[kallend 2,122]

Quote

Quote

Well, if all kids were raised correctly, we wouldn't need to defend schools anyway.

congratulations, even a blind squirrel finds a nut sometime - but you still chose the miss the point again - keep on doing the maths

Who said my point was the same as your point? That's self-centered arrogance on your part.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Also, you have a link to a site with crimes categorized by weapon? I find it hard to believe that in those 10 years there was no change in the number of crimes committed with assault rifles. Even if true, I still don't see why in the world anybody other than cops and soldiers needs an assault rifle.

There was no change in crime because there's no such thing as an assualt rifle. Feel free to try to offer me a definition, but it was typical grandstanding. Criminals continue to use handguns, shotguns, and illegal automatics. Banning a semi automatic uzi just means they'll buy one from their drug connections, or substitute in a different legal substitute.

All it did was hassle the citizens. And for that reason, it was not renewed.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Also, you have a link to a site with crimes categorized by weapon? I find it hard to believe that in those 10 years there was no change in the number of crimes committed with assault rifles. Even if true, I still don't see why in the world anybody other than cops and soldiers needs an assault rifle.

There was no change in crime because there's no such thing as an assualt rifle. Feel free to try to offer me a definition, but it was typical grandstanding. Criminals continue to use handguns, shotguns, and illegal automatics. Banning a semi automatic uzi just means they'll buy one from their drug connections, or substitute in a different legal substitute.

All it did was hassle the citizens. And for that reason, it was not renewed.

I'm getting more confused instead of less. So there is no such thing as an assault rifle? What was being banned then?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

What are the crimes that disqualify a person from owning a gun?

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b5

Quote

I find it hard to believe that in those 10 years there was no change in the number of crimes committed with assault rifles.

Only a tiny percentage of gun crimes was committed with so-called "assault weapons" in the first place. And all the ban did was eliminate new manufacture, but did not confiscate all the previously existing guns. Thus, the number in circulation really didn't change. So it was all much ado about nothing - just an attempt by the gun-o-phobes to ban *something* so they could put a feather in their cap, and it was all done with hype and media disinformation, with the complicity of the media.

Quote

I still don't see why in the world anybody other than cops and soldiers needs an assault rifle.

Yep, you've been misled by the media all right. An "assault rifle", as defined by this law, was one that had two or more of the following features: a folding stock, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, and/or a removable magazine. Notice how none of those things have anything at all to do with how deadly the rifle is? It had nothing to do with the power of the cartridges it fired, or the rate of fire. All one had to do was unscrew the flash suppressor, or replace the folding stock with a fixed stock, and presto, it was no longer a so-called "assault rifle"! It was meaningless symbolism.

Furthermore, many of the banned rifles are actually widely used in sport shooting competition, such as the AR15. This is contrary to the media myth, which you had bought into, that these are somehow rifles designed solely for military purposes. Not true. In fact, AR15's are the most common rifle by far on the firing line at high-power rifle target competitions.

Quote

come down on the side of people wanting a gun needing to prove they are worthy, not the government needing to prove the applicant is unworthy. Kind of like drivers licenses. You need to pass written, driving, and visual exams.

You'll have a problem with that. Driving is a privilege, while gun ownership is a constitutional right. You can't require a test to be passed in order to exercise a constitutional right - so says the Supreme Court. That's why anyone can vote, regardless of their knowledge of politics or candidates. A test is an infringement upon the exercise of the constitutional right, for voting, or for gun ownership..

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I'm getting more confused instead of less. So there is no such thing as an assault rifle? What was being banned then?

The technical definition of an "assault rifle" is what the military uses, meaning that it is a short, light rifle firing a medium-power cartridge.

However, the politicians defined it for their purposes based upon cosmetic features like a flash suppressor. If it "looked evil", then it's an assault rifle.

So, yes, it's confusing because the politicians intentionally muddled the two together, to make the general public believe that they were talking about machineguns, when in fact they were talking about cosmetic features.

Most of the public never knew better, because the media didn't bother to explain this. They were duped.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

Yep, you've been misled by the media all right. An "assault rifle", as defined by this law, was one that had two or more of the following features: a folding stock, a pistol grip, a flash suppressor, and/or a removable magazine. Notice how none of those things have anything at all to do with how deadly the rifle is?

I disagree, the removable magazine can easily make a weapon more deadly.

The remainder of options I agree do not do anything to increase the weapons level of danger.

Quote

Furthermore, many of the banned rifles are actually widely used in sport shooting competition, such as the AR15. This is contrary to the media myth, which you had bought into, that these are somehow rifles designed solely for military purposes. Not true. In fact, AR15's are the most common rifle by far on the firing line at high-power rifle target competitions.

The AR15/M16 style weapon was designed for the military, just because civilians like them and have found uses for them does not change the fact that the weapon was designed for the military.

"1958. Armalite delivers first new rifles, called the AR-15, to the Army for testing. Initial tests display some reliability and accuracy problems with the rifle.
1959. Late that year Fairchild Co, being disappointed with the development of the AR-15, sold all rights for this design to the Colt's Patent Firearms Manufacturing Company.
1960. Eugene Stoner leaves the Armalite and joins the Colt. The same year Colt demonstrated the AR-15 to the US Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, Gen. LeMay. Gen. LeMay wanted to procure some 8 000 AR-15 rifles for US AF Strategic Air Command security forces to replace ageing M1 and M2 carbines.
1962. US DoD Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) purchases 1000 AR-15 rifles from Colt and sends those rifles to the South Vietnam, for field trials. Same year brings glowing reports about the effectiveness of the new "black rifle", used by South Vietnamese forces.
1963. Colt receives contracts for 85 000 rifles for US Army (designated as XM16E1) and for further 19 000 rifles for US Air Forces (M16). The US AF M16 was no more than an AR-15 rifle with appropriate markings. The XM16E1 differed from AR-15/M16 by having an additional device, the so called "forward assist", which was used to manually push the bolt group in place in the case of jams.
."

From http://world.guns.ru/assault/as18-e.htm


And:

Production of the AR-15 rifle was licensed to to Colt Manufacturing Company in 1959. Early Colt AR-15s, their magazines, and their operators manuals were marked with ArmaLite's name. Colt's retained the AR-15 designation on commercial rifles. To this day Colt's has a model designation with the letters AR, which stands for "ArmaLite".

The AR-15 was selectable for full and automatic fire. The AR-15 was to have had the same effective range as the M14 rifle, but it was most effective at a range of 215 yards (200m) or less. The M16 used a 5.56mm (.223 cal.) cartridge in 20- or 30-round magazines. To compensate for the reduced size of the 5.56 mm bullet, the AR-15 designers increased the velocity of the bullet so that it would have an adequate range and the flat trajectory needed for accurate aiming. The M16 bullet had a muzzle velocity (velocity on leaving the gun) of 980 meters per second as compared to 870 meters per second for the M14 rifle and 720 metres per second for the Soviet AK-47 7.62 mm rifle, while at a range of 100 meters the velocities of the three bullets were 830, 800, and 630 meters per second respectively.

The U.S. Air Force completed tests of the AR-15 in January 1961. The Air Force procured 8,500 rifles in 1961 and standardized the AR-15 in 1963. The weapon was first deployed to the Air Force's Air Police. The original AR-15 was designated the M16 in 1962.

The new rifle had the advantage from a military point of view of weighing one- fourth less than the M14, and the ammunition also was lighter, reducing the recoil against the soldier's shoulder and enabling a soldier to carry more rounds. As interest in the problems of counter-insurgency grew under the Kennedy administration in the early 1960s, the US military quietly bought several thousand AR-15s and sent them to Vietnam for testing in combat conditions.

In the Vietnam era, DARPA (then ARPA) gained acceptance for the AR-15 by sponsoring its demonstration in combat. Colt brought the weapon to DARPA in 1962. Through Project AGILE, DARPA purchased 1,000 AR-15s and issued them to combat troops in Southeast Asia for field trials, to prove that the high-velocity 5.56 mm round had satisfactory performance. The subsequent DARPA report, documenting the lethality of the AR-15, was instrumental in motivating the Secretary of Defense to reconsider the Army's decision and eventually adopt a modified AR-15 as the US military individual weapon of choice. Although opposed by the Ordnance Corps, the Armalite AR-15 was adopted by the Secretary of Defense as the 5.56mm M16 rifle.

The AR-15 was redesignated by the US Army as the M16 rifle, and in 1967 the Army announced that it would be adopted as the standard infantry weapon for US Forces outside NATO. By 1978 the rifle had been exported to 21 countries and was being produced under licence in another three, with various other 5.56 mm rifles in production elsewhere.


From : http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m16-history.htm

Now to *me* it sure seems like the AR15 was designed as a military weapon.

Now I agree that 2nd allows ownership of these weapons, but please do not try to make them out to be anything other than what they are, weapons.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I'm getting more confused instead of less. So there is no such thing as an assault rifle? What was being banned then?

Guns that look mean, ugly, or scary. Later, we can ban the other ones.

That was the extent of the thinking process. After a asshole with an AK47 opened up on immigrants in a Stockton school yard, the move was to try to ban as many non hunting focused rifles as possible. Not because these weapons were worse or more lethal, but because the hunters wouldn't have any part of it.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

The AR15/M16 style weapon was designed for the military, just because civilians like them and have found uses for them does not change the fact that the weapon was designed for the military...

See this thread for a discussion concerning what guns were originally designed for and how they are used today. I'm not going to repeat all that again here. It doesn't change the fact that they are very popular sporting target rifles today.

It was unnecessary to post all that lengthy cut-and-paste about the origins of the M-16 and AR15 - it's common knowledge.

[DaVinci 0]

Quote

It was unnecessary to post all that lengthy cut-and-paste about the origins of the M-16 and AR15 - it's common knowledge.

I'm sorry, it does not seem to be "common knowledge". You said "This is contrary to the media myth, which you had bought into, that these are somehow rifles designed solely for military purposes."

Then went on to say that was wrong. It is not, they were infact designed soley for a military reason, and civilians like them, and used them. My cut and paste job showed that quite clearly.

You said something that was wrong and tried to make someone feel bad for being correct.

Quote

It doesn't change the fact that they are very popular sporting target rifles today.

No it does not change anything, but just because they are popular today as a sporting rifle does not mean they were not designed as a weapon for soldiers which is what you had claimed.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Can you clarify please? Are you saying there would not be 'too many guns' because it is a one room school? If a teacher choose to arm themselves in a one room school, how many guns do you think they would actually need? Or do you mean because it was an Amish school there would be to many guns. Either way I don't understand you choice of the words "too many guns" because as you point out this is a one room school.

Number two.

Don't think the Amish are big on gun ownership, specially not to kill other people. Self defence or not.

[Nick 0]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


England has just been lucky.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


It has very little to do with luck, and much to do with the culture.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You're correct. It's not about guns. It's about culture.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Actually, its about a culture of violence and guns

No it's a culture of not having guns because in the 21st century we don't need guns.

Nick
Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

No it's a culture of not having guns because in the 21st century we don't need guns.

I'd say the event being discussed in this very thread proves you wrong.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Nick 0]

I'm in the UK and since we've not had a shooting in a school for quite some time and in general shooting are pretty rare I feel totally safe without a gun.

Nick
Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!

[mnealtx 0]

My apologies - I didn't note the original reference to the UK in the cut/pastes...

That said, it's an agree to disagree situation...

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[pirana 0]

OK, so I seriously sidetracked the thread by complaining about the NRA fighting any rules that threaten wide open gun ownership. Interesting and informative replies though - very appreciated.

So, pulling back from that tangent, and retracing back to my earlier tangent about access. What are people's ideas of how to reduce (ideally eliminate) access to guns for those that should not have them.

Clearly, most of the perpetrators of these crimes would have been legally denied access based on the criteria JohnRich provided. How does this get solved?

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[mnealtx 0]

The problem isn't so much the weapon, but what the scumbag does with it... whether that be a rifle, a knife or a pointy rock. As a gag, for several months there was a live webcam of a Glock sitting on a table... to the wild surprise of the Brady bunch and their supporters, it never did jump off the table and rampage through the neighborhood.

The other leg of the problem is that these prohibitions affect the law abiding more strongly than any other segment - Joe Felon with the conviction record as long as his arm isn't going to walk into the LFG (local friendly gunstore) and fill out an 1173, because he knows he won't be approved. He goes to his buddy down the block and buys from him.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

So, pulling back from that tangent, and retracing back to my earlier tangent about access. What are people's ideas of how to reduce (ideally eliminate) access to guns for those that should not have them.

Clearly, most of the perpetrators of these crimes would have been legally denied access based on the criteria JohnRich provided. How does this get solved?

As I suggested, Dublane could have happened without guns, and so could this incident. The number killed as SWAT rushed the building could have been lower, potentially.

To the second question, it isn't really solvable. People will always be able to get contraband. And there are more guns than people in this country. So we're better off working the defense angle. And the crime and punishment angle.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

It was unnecessary to post all that lengthy cut-and-paste about the origins of the M-16 and AR15 - it's common knowledge.

I'm sorry, it does not seem to be "common knowledge". You said "This is contrary to the media myth, which you had bought into, that these are somehow rifles designed solely for military purposes."

Then went on to say that was wrong. It is not, they were infact designed soley for a military reason, and civilians like them, and used them. My cut and paste job showed that quite clearly.

You said something that was wrong and tried to make someone feel bad for being correct.

Quote

It doesn't change the fact that they are very popular sporting target rifles today.

No it does not change anything, but just because they are popular today as a sporting rifle does not mean they were not designed as a weapon for soldiers which is what you had claimed.

You are talking about their original design intent many decades ago. And I'm talking about the many varieties of designs which have sprung up since and exist today. Two different things. We're both correct. Chill.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Don't think the Amish are big on gun ownership, specially not to kill other people. Self defence or not.

Upon what do you base that?

The Bible has many references to owning weapons with which to defend yourself.

Luke:11:21-22
"When a strong man armed keepeth his palace, his goods are in peace: But when a stronger than he shall come upon him, and overcome him, he taketh from him all his armour wherein he trusted, and divideth his spoils."

Luke:22:36
"He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

Exodus:22:2
"If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him."

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

it's a culture of not having guns because in the 21st century we don't need guns.

That's very sweet of you to make that determination on behalf of everyone else on the planet.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

OK, so I seriously sidetracked the thread by complaining about the NRA fighting any rules that threaten wide open gun ownership. Interesting and informative replies though - very appreciated.

I'm glad that you are paying attention with an open mind and are learning something about the gun issue.

Quote

What are people's ideas of how to reduce (ideally eliminate) access to guns for those that should not have them. Clearly, most of the perpetrators of these crimes would have been legally denied access based on the criteria JohnRich provided. How does this get solved?

It doesn't. That's not the answer anyone wants to hear, but that's the practical truth. The black market will always provide what someone wants. All gun control laws only affect the law-abiding, which aren't the problem. Just look at the "war on drugs" as an example. It's been fought for about 40 years, or more, now. Does it stop anyone from getting illegal drugs? Nope.

News:

Just three days after a Wisconsin principal was gunned down in a hallway, state and national school safety experts admitted even the best security plan may not have prevented the bloodshed. The experts talked about improving safety but acknowledged that no metal detector, integrated emergency response plan or lock down procedure can stop those most motivated to do harm. “You can’t prevent everything because you can’t develop prisons out of your schools...’’

Source: http://www.chippewa.com/articles/2006/10/03/news/news3.txt

Of course, the politicians will never make that admission, because they have to appear to be doing something about the problem, in order to make their voters happy. Thus, we have ever more gun control, all of which is futile.

The best solution I have is that when someone starts committing violent crimes, you lock their ass away for a very long time, so that they're not free to commit more crimes. Quit worrying about controlling the objects they use, and punish them for their behavior.

[Nick 0]

Quote

it's a culture of not having guns because in the 21st century we don't need guns.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


That's very sweet of you to make that determination on behalf of everyone else on the planet.

If you'd have taken the time to read my whole post you'd have seen that I was refering to UK as I'm from the UK, I don't have the right to say how you should to control things just as you shouldn't have the right to say how things are over here.

Nick
Gravity- It's not just a good idea, it's the LAW!