OT: 6th grader brings gun to school

[spacedoodoopistol]

People commit fewer gun crimes where people are known to possess guns.

What's crazy about this statement is that Sickness probably actually believes its true. There is such a vast amount of self-deception involved in this issue, in addition to plain old lying. That said, it should take any reasonable person about one second to realize its nonsense.

Sickness, America leads the civilized world in both number of guns and gun crimes. Some of the most armed places, like Detroit and Baltimore, are the deadliest places. Guns aren't remotely as good a deterrent as the lovers would like you to believe.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

I'm not following. I don't know much about guns, but I assume his glock and Sig Sauer was what he used, how fast and how many could the pistols that he owned but didn't use shoot? Or is his "glock" the pistol, which as you said was semi-auto? Can pistol's be semi-auto or is that an oxymoron to say semi-auto pistol? (I thought pistols were standard, not semi-auto.) Or are you saying his semi-auto that he used was slow because it can only fire a fast as a trigger can be pulled? So therefore, the shots are the same?

Semi-auto simply means the chamber reloads a bullet automatically after a shot, that's all.....you don't need to cock or pump anything (that sounded dirty). So yeah, lots of pistols are semi-auto.

With a modern, well-oiled machine like a Glock it all happens very rapidly, meaning you can get multiple shots off in a second - as fast as you can squeeze the trigger. Lots of older pistols would just have a slower mechanism, the bullet doesn't re-load as rapidly, the trigger doesn't reset so instantly, and you just can't get as many shots off as quickly.

Having a big magazine helps as well, reducing the need to reload the weapon and allowing someone to just keep shooting.

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

and I've been shot at twice (right after the 2012 Giants WS celebration as I was outside Old Navy heading for the Powell BART

Brutal list of incidents you have, but this one really fuckin sucks!

 

[MHSL82]

Semi-auto simply means the chamber reloads a bullet automatically after a shot, that's all.....you don't need to cock or pump anything (that sounded dirty). So yeah, lots of pistols are semi-auto.

With a modern, well-oiled machine like a Glock it all happens very rapidly, meaning you can get multiple shots off in a second - as fast as you can squeeze the trigger. Lots of older pistols would just have a slower mechanism, the bullet doesn't re-load as rapidly, the trigger doesn't reset so instantly, and you just can't get as many shots off as quickly.

Having a big magazine helps as well, reducing the need to reload the weapon and allowing someone to just keep shooting.

Thanks for the information.

So if there weren't any semi-automatics (or automatics) (or only guns you have to pump and cock - yes, that does sound dirty), we might be facing 25 deaths instead of 26, (24, 23, or fewer maybe)? (There may still be the same number, I suppose because I don't know how much speed is a factor and kids aren't the best at dodging a risk they might not appreciate.) There's no science to back this up from my end, I just think every limitation would have helped. All it takes is one kid to make it worth it - while I do think there are lives saved by protection, few of them are protected more by a semi-automatic than a regular pistol. Deterrence is that you can fight back, not necessarily with tens of bullets.

Having said all that, my talk is just hypothetical - since there are semi's out there, it's not foolproof because people will keep them if owned or convert them if possible. Being illegal just justifies arrest when caught and deters those who are law-abiding. (Though I suppose, if some turn them in, some heat of the moment, crazy moments from otherwise law-abiding people could coincidentally be stopped, unknowingly). Food for thought, the shooters mom had the guns legally - if semi's weren't legal, she'd likely own less automatic guns - I doubt she'd go illegal to get them semi-automatic. So in this instance, it might have saved a life or two, even if the shooter still went in.

Schools have security measures, but they need to find out how the shooter got in. I went into my former elementary to see a teacher while school was in session, not knowing the rule against it, so I don't expect all schools to prevent everything, but a discussion on safety measures is apt. I'm sure at least until the end of 2012, I couldn't go in without clearance like I did before. (I'm a pessimist who thinks this stuff will be forgotten in time before it happens again, in which for a short period, schools will be aware.)

 

[spacedoodoopistol]

So if there weren't any semi-automatics (or automatics) (or only guns you have to pump and cock - yes, that does sound dirty), we might be facing 25 deaths instead of 26, (24, 23, or fewer maybe)?

Connecticut school shooting: Semi-automatic weapons and other high-speed guns should be the focus of gun control. - Slate Magazine

"Look up the worst school massacres in history, and you’ll see the pattern. Madmen are everywhere. They strike without regard to gun laws, mental health care, or the national rate of churchgoing. They’ve slaughtered children in every country you’d think might have been spared: Scotland, Germany, Canada, Brazil, Finland, Japan. They’ve falsified every pet political theory about what kind of culture or medical system or firearms legislation prevents mass murder.

But one pattern holds true: The faster the weapon, the higher the body count....."

Guns do more damage. Look down the list and you’ll see gun after gun after gun. But not all guns are equal. I’ve gone through the 25 worst massacres on the chart, and nearly every shooter had a semi-automatic weapon. The one exception was a guy who had speedloaders and a bandolier so he could keep firing. High-capacity magazines are another common factor. All these patterns converge on a common lesson: Speed kills. Madness pulls the trigger, but the rate of fire drives the body count."

The list he's talking about:

List of rampage killers: School massacres - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[MHSL82]

Connecticut school shooting: Semi-automatic weapons and other high-speed guns should be the focus of gun control. - Slate Magazine

The list he's talking about:

List of rampage killers: School massacres - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for the info. I'm not a big gun control guy and obviously not a gun rights guy either. I just get tired of the "well, you can't stop all of them, so why bother" type of attitude. You can work on education and the gun culture at the same time as restricting semi-automatics. Make it as difficult as you can without banning all guns to all people (because law-abiding people should have protection).

My father in law was a smoker and smoked every once in awhile before he quit - personally, I don't care if you smoke, I just know that when/if cancer/death happened, my wife would take it HARD. I told him about it and he quit. Years ago, before I just talked to him about it (didn't feel that I could before), I would throw them away whenever I saw them, knowing that he wasn't addicted but every cigarette could add to the chances of getting cancer. Slow his rate, you know? Make him wait until the next morning or the weekend. It was more of a habit, like I drink a lot of coke. He knew I did this and why I did it. He doesn't have a temper luckily and doesn't stock up (which is what I would have done - or I would have yelled at the person who took mine) because it's not a high addiction for him. He would buy a pack at a time. I could be wrong since I've only spent a month with him at a time. I wish I could resell them. (Not advising anyone else to do the same as I did (I know that's annoying as hell), as I know situations are different. He's smart enough to stock up and hide if he wanted to, so I didn't feel too bad.) He could still smoke secretly of course and lie about it, but I feel I did my part and am at peace with it. Plus, not everyone who smokes gets cancer, so this might be moot. I didn't convince myself that what I was doing worked, I just did it because of short term things.

 

[NinerSickness]

And I have a rock that keeps tigers away.

Brilliant retort stolen from the Simpsons. I take it all back.

Wow, I must have missed this post. Someone bringing up Switzerland and accusing others of cherry picking in the same paragraph. That's really something.

Ok, how 'bout criminology Professors Don Kates & Gary Mause from Harvard researching murder rates from 18 European countries; 9 of them have the highest gun ownership in Europe, and 9 of them have the lowest gun ownership in Europe. The 9 countries with the lowest gun ownership had a murder rate 3 times higher than the 9 countries with the highest gun ownership. They concluded that gun control is counterproductive.

If gun-control people were right about their asinine theory, Switzerland would be a war zone.

 

[abaskin18]

Brilliant retort stolen from the Simpsons. I take it all back.



Ok, how 'bout criminology Professors Don Kates & Gary Mause from Harvard researching murder rates from 18 European countries; 9 of them have the highest gun ownership in Europe, and 9 of them have the lowest gun ownership in Europe. The 9 countries with the lowest gun ownership had a murder rate 3 times higher than the 9 countries with the highest gun ownership. They concluded that gun control is counterproductive.

If gun-control people were right about their asinine theory, Switzerland would be a war zone.

You conveniently leave out things like compulsory military service in some of those countries which leads to trained gun owners. Switzerland also has this whole neutrality thing too that's a pretty big part of their culture. Comparing the US with Switzerland isn't even apples to oranges.

As for the quote from the Simpsons, do you somehow think that it being a quote from the Simpsons makes your attempt at demonstrating causality more worthwhile? You told a story that shows correlation at best, more likely coincidence, and tried to pass it off as conclusive causality.

 

[NinerSickness]

This issue is a PERFECT example of how liberals don't care about actual results of their plans. They only care if it sounds good.

Don't let things like gun-crime statistics ruin a good theory.

 

[abaskin18]

This issue is a PERFECT example of how liberals don't care about actual results of their plans. They only care if it sounds good.

Don't let things like gun-crime statistics ruin a good theory.

Bull. Shit. You want to compare the US to somewhere similar when it comes to guns compare it to the UK or Australia. But THOSE statistics don't support your claims, so they're not relevant, right? But, yeah, those are really insightful statistics from Switzerland.

Label me whatever you want if you think it somehow minimizes the content of my message. You're all theory and no practice theories are challenged and this is what you have? I'm sorry I responded to any of your posts in this thread. It won't happen again. Stay safe out there.

 

[NinerSickness]

Oh so 18 European countries isn't a big enough example?

Ok. The year following the '97 gun law passed in Austrailia, armed robberies went up 44%. Murder increased 3.2 percent.

That was the same year the Labour party took control in England and started passing their gun control laws, and crimes involving guns went up 65% in 5 years.

Everywhere on earth gun ownership is hindered, crime goes up. I don't know why you keep mentioning Austrailia and the UK because they're a perfect example of how gun control doesn't work.

The Harvard study included 18 European countries. That's a huge sample. High rates of gun ownership REDUCES gun crime. This simplistic phobia of guns is ridiculous.

 

[TheNinerMind]

MOST PEOPLE ARE STUPID AND IRRESPONSIBLE. Most people should not have access to devices whose sole purpose is to place bullets into people. Nancy Lanza who was stockpiling guns because of Obama - she was a moron who should not have been allowed to own a gun. Jovan Belcher - too stupid to own a weapon.

I say to hell with worrying about guns. Just severely tax bullets. Make bullets cost $50 per single bullet. Is that going to stop gun violence? No. But maybe it will encourage more knife violence instead.

 

[EKmane]

I feel you man. I felt the same way after I got jumped the first time for walking my buddy's drunk girl home after a party.

I spent a lot of time in Oakland back in the day (never again, though), and the city installed poles that have mics so OPD is able to pinpoint within 50 feet where any gunshots came from, so walking with a gun wasn't the best idea, plus, even though I did admittedly think of how nice it would be to level the playing field if I was to be jumped again by busting out a 9mm, I had dreams of college, and getting tangled into some hood war shit has never been who I am.

I learned early that if you plan on carrying a weapon you better be ready to use it, otherwise you just endanger yourself because someone could take it from you, or dickhead cops could try and detain you. I'm a knife enthusiast and carried a knife for awhile, but I stopped when I came to that realization that I didn't want to ever use it.... and, honestly, I don't really mind taking a punch.

I kind of miss the days when you could squab with people. If you have problems with someone, you put on the boxing gloves and went a few rounds till someone got knocked down or gave up. And fuck, after the fight you aren't even that pissed anymore cause you gain a bit of respect for someone when they punch you in the mouth.

Ahh, the days. Or, do you remember wrapping your hands in socks to box with friends in the garage? Those were the days.

 

[MHSL82]

MOST PEOPLE ARE STUPID AND IRRESPONSIBLE. Most people should not have access to devices whose sole purpose is to place bullets into people. Nancy Lanza who was stockpiling guns because of Obama - she was a moron who should not have been allowed to own a gun. Jovan Belcher - too stupid to own a weapon.

I say to hell with worrying about guns. Just severely tax bullets. Make bullets cost $50 per single bullet. Is that going to stop gun violence? No. But maybe it will encourage more knife violence instead.

Chris Rock says that bullets should be 500 bucks, there would be no more innocent bystanders; in fact, if there were a stray bullet, you wouldn't need no hospital to remove it, the shooter would. You should really watch the following if you haven't seen it before. He also in another clip, to paraphrase, says that "Guns don't kill people; people kill people, but the gun sure helps."

[YOUTUBE]OuX-nFmL0II[/YOUTUBE]

 

[MHSL82]

Didn't want to start a new thread, so posting it here - though not being about guns, just prison.

For those not familiar with Joe Arpio, he is the County Sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona. He keeps getting re-elected over and over again. - Naichisoup

 

[DoobieKeebler]

This issue is a PERFECT example of how liberals don't care about actual results of their plans. They only care if it sounds good.

Don't let things like gun-crime statistics ruin a good theory.

Hey, you shouldn't generalize. Not every liberal follows that gameplan.

There are a number of dumbass Conservatives who have no interest in understanding nuances of the positions they support, but I know that many Conservatives, Libertarians, and Independents are insanely smart. Saying "Liberals do this" or "Conservatives do that" only works to polarize politics and stop both sides from finding common ground.

Neither side gets what they want if they refuse to respect one another on some level (doesn't mean you have to respect them ALL, but realize being a Liberal or Conservative doesn't mean someone is an idiot).

 

[MHSL82]

Jackson Katz: Memo to Media: Manhood, Not Guns or Mental Illness, Should Be Central in Newtown Shooting

This article talks about the first step in finding a workable solution is to be sexist, I mean, to look at why all these shoot-ups are by men, not women. Stop focusing on mental illness and focus on men. He states that if a woman shot up the school, we'd talk about the female-ness of the shooter and the stereotypes of shooters, etc., but since it was a man, we talk about "individuals," "people," or "those with mental disorders," not with "men." It seems kind of backwards to talk about how the media is sexist and then say that the solution is to be sexist the other way. If there were a similar article written but instead of saying men, they said women, African-Americans, Hispanics, the poor, etc., people would have knee-jerk reactions against this.

But don't worry, his last point is that it isn't "anti-male" to point out the truth - when in an article criticizing women claiming it wasn't anti-women wouldn't suffice to allay the allegations. To be honest, It's ok because just like in reverse discrimination actions against the majority, the male gender is the dominant party so therefore being discriminatory towards them is ok. I think it is the truth, but to seemingly blast and preempt any criticism for doing the exact same thing you are criticizing (treating genders differently) seems unnecessary. Just make the damn observation that men are the shooters. Don't lament on this male dominated culture. This sounds PC to me just to set up something that isn't PC.

He talks about what the media must do to "shape the issues" - I know the media does this, but it sounds weird to say, "this is how you manipulate the public" in seven steps. I'm not offended by this as a man, just stating my opinion. About those who get offended:

 

[yehyeh]

I found this to be a powerful article. This is from a federal judge who has had to sit through a trial where he saw the carnage that these weapons can cause. I would fathom that most law enforcement officials would agree with him.

The conservative case for an assault weapons ban - latimes.com

 

[Bemular]

I found this to be a powerful article. This is from a federal judge who has had to sit through a trial where he saw the carnage that these weapons can cause. I would fathom that most law enforcement officials would agree with him.

The conservative case for an assault weapons ban - latimes.com

It seems the point of this entire article was summed up in one sentence - the last one.

"Congress must reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines."

 

[MHSL82]

Forgot to add that if the criteria for having a mental illness is shooting a bunch of people, then all these shootings are mentally ill based. So I understand the point of the gender article in that it's too simple to point to mental illness as the cause or to walk away by just saying that was the cause. That, to me, doesn't mean that isn't a main focus in the gun control discussion (there are more than one areas of focus).