Another US Campus mass shooting.
Discussion
rohrl said:
Reading the BBC article linked above this is the graphic which jumped out at me. How do the Americans put up with this?
About 80% of homicides are gangbangers killing other gangbangers. Most people are not gangbangers and are very unlikely to be the victim of violent crime.The graph also misses out the homicide rate in Mexico. Mexico has very restrictive laws for private gun ownership which would give the anti-gun owning brigade on this thread a jizz soaked wet dream of moral righteousness and moral superiority over crazed, stupid and unstable ordinary US gun owners. Despite the restrictive Mexican gun laws, the homicide rate there is multiples that of the USA.
As was pointed out by an earlier post; if you exclude the gang banging homicides from the porus US-Mexico border, the US homicide rate would be a lot closer to that of Canada.
creampuff said:
Whataboutery
Those "gangbangers" are all someone's son who would probably grow out of crime by their late twenties and go on to live a productive life, the same way as petty criminals in the UK do.Bringing up Mexico is just whataboutery. The countries illustrated are comparable in economic and social terms.
creampuff said:
About 80% of homicides are gangbangers killing other gangbangers. Most people are not gangbangers and are very unlikely to be the victim of violent crime.
The graph also misses out the homicide rate in Mexico. Mexico has very restrictive laws for private gun ownership which would give the anti-gun owning brigade on this thread a jizz soaked wet dream of moral righteousness and moral superiority over crazed, stupid and unstable ordinary US gun owners. Despite the restrictive Mexican gun laws, the homicide rate there is multiples that of the USA.
As was pointed out by an earlier post; if you exclude the gang banging homicides from the porus US-Mexico border, the US homicide rate would be a lot closer to that of Canada.
Perversely enough, one of Mexico's big problems is that despite their restrictive gun laws, guns are freely available in the US and flood south to be used in the drug gang wars. One of the delights of sharing a border with the USA. So the high Mexican homicide rate is partly due to the arming of their crazies from the US.The graph also misses out the homicide rate in Mexico. Mexico has very restrictive laws for private gun ownership which would give the anti-gun owning brigade on this thread a jizz soaked wet dream of moral righteousness and moral superiority over crazed, stupid and unstable ordinary US gun owners. Despite the restrictive Mexican gun laws, the homicide rate there is multiples that of the USA.
As was pointed out by an earlier post; if you exclude the gang banging homicides from the porus US-Mexico border, the US homicide rate would be a lot closer to that of Canada.
dudleybloke said:
This incident is strange because its the only time in recent history that nobody's bothered to film it on their phones.
Well the NRA will probably be saying it never happened then, there are some who claim Sandy Hook was a hoax set up by the anti-gun lobby.BTW I thnk gun control is a good thing, outright bans are a bad thing, and the NRA are nutters (generally)
Serious question to the people against controls.
Would there be much resistance to limiting a gun to say 3 bullets/cartridges/rounds/FMJs/(insert Rambo-ism for bullet here)?
For hunting, if you're any good, one, maybe two shots should be all you need.
For targets, you've got all the time in the world to reload - there is no real requirement to have more in the gun ready for instant use.
For self-defence, unless you're being mugged by a car full of people, again, a couple of shots should be enough. If you need 12 shots, then you'd need to be Quickdraw McGraw to actually take out half a dozen people - whenever you see YT videos of US cops shooting, they fire a dozen times and barely hit one target. If you're defending your home then one shot would have unarmed burglars running away.
It may not solve the problem (they can carry multiple magazines etc), but it may well reduce the severity of such incidents. As mentioned before, the second amendment was written when people carried single shot muskets, which took an age to reload. I'm happy for everyone to be allowed to carry a musket. They can have their one shot, then while they're cleaning, ramming, powdering etc they will get "their asses [sic] handed to them" by any and everyone nearby.
A 30 second search threw this up: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/7-MAG557BLK
Note the website name... A 30 round AR15 magazine, the description say it "will work flawlessly every time no matter what conditions you find yourself in." In what circumstance/conditions would you EVER need a 30 round magazine to work flawlessly? I genuinely can't think of one.
(Not anti-gun, by the way, I have a couple of legal-limit air rifles for rabbiting, used to have a shotgun and I installed a gun and ammo safe in my last house, and have in the past been employed in the shooting "game". I just don't understand the need for pseudo-military spec "assault" weapons in a civilians hands in a country with no war)
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/3-0134901?t... About 400 quid. Less than a set of tyres or a decent meal/wine/cab home in London. The mind boggles.
Would there be much resistance to limiting a gun to say 3 bullets/cartridges/rounds/FMJs/(insert Rambo-ism for bullet here)?
For hunting, if you're any good, one, maybe two shots should be all you need.
For targets, you've got all the time in the world to reload - there is no real requirement to have more in the gun ready for instant use.
For self-defence, unless you're being mugged by a car full of people, again, a couple of shots should be enough. If you need 12 shots, then you'd need to be Quickdraw McGraw to actually take out half a dozen people - whenever you see YT videos of US cops shooting, they fire a dozen times and barely hit one target. If you're defending your home then one shot would have unarmed burglars running away.
It may not solve the problem (they can carry multiple magazines etc), but it may well reduce the severity of such incidents. As mentioned before, the second amendment was written when people carried single shot muskets, which took an age to reload. I'm happy for everyone to be allowed to carry a musket. They can have their one shot, then while they're cleaning, ramming, powdering etc they will get "their asses [sic] handed to them" by any and everyone nearby.
A 30 second search threw this up: http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/7-MAG557BLK
Note the website name... A 30 round AR15 magazine, the description say it "will work flawlessly every time no matter what conditions you find yourself in." In what circumstance/conditions would you EVER need a 30 round magazine to work flawlessly? I genuinely can't think of one.
(Not anti-gun, by the way, I have a couple of legal-limit air rifles for rabbiting, used to have a shotgun and I installed a gun and ammo safe in my last house, and have in the past been employed in the shooting "game". I just don't understand the need for pseudo-military spec "assault" weapons in a civilians hands in a country with no war)
http://www.cheaperthandirt.com/product/3-0134901?t... About 400 quid. Less than a set of tyres or a decent meal/wine/cab home in London. The mind boggles.
OpulentBob said:
Serious question to the people against controls.
Would there be much resistance to limiting a gun to say 3 bullets/cartridges/rounds/FMJs/(insert Rambo-ism for bullet here)?
For hunting, if you're any good, one, maybe two shots should be all you need.
For targets, you've got all the time in the world to reload - there is no real requirement to have more in the gun ready for instant use.
For self-defence, unless you're being mugged by a car full of people, again, a couple of shots should be enough. If you need 12 shots, then you'd need to be Quickdraw McGraw to actually take out half a dozen people - whenever you see YT videos of US cops shooting, they fire a dozen times and barely hit one target. If you're defending your home then one shot would have unarmed burglars running away.
I don't think there are any people on here who are against control, the question is what level of control is 1 Sensible. 2 Workable. 3 Has any chance of acceptance.Would there be much resistance to limiting a gun to say 3 bullets/cartridges/rounds/FMJs/(insert Rambo-ism for bullet here)?
For hunting, if you're any good, one, maybe two shots should be all you need.
For targets, you've got all the time in the world to reload - there is no real requirement to have more in the gun ready for instant use.
For self-defence, unless you're being mugged by a car full of people, again, a couple of shots should be enough. If you need 12 shots, then you'd need to be Quickdraw McGraw to actually take out half a dozen people - whenever you see YT videos of US cops shooting, they fire a dozen times and barely hit one target. If you're defending your home then one shot would have unarmed burglars running away.
Your idea of limiting the number of rounds would certainly be fought against in the US, I know I had my .45 rebarrelled to .38 so the magazine could carry a couple of extra rounds, that it actually made it a better gun to use was a bonus.
creampuff said:
About 80% of homicides are gangbangers killing other gangbangers. Most people are not gangbangers and are very unlikely to be the victim of violent crime.
The graph also misses out the homicide rate in Mexico. Mexico has very restrictive laws for private gun ownership which would give the anti-gun owning brigade on this thread a jizz soaked wet dream of moral righteousness and moral superiority over crazed, stupid and unstable ordinary US gun owners. Despite the restrictive Mexican gun laws, the homicide rate there is multiples that of the USA.
As was pointed out by an earlier post; if you exclude the gang banging homicides from the porus US-Mexico border, the US homicide rate would be a lot closer to that of Canada.
I wonder how many of those deaths were home owners who didn't own a gun being burgled?The graph also misses out the homicide rate in Mexico. Mexico has very restrictive laws for private gun ownership which would give the anti-gun owning brigade on this thread a jizz soaked wet dream of moral righteousness and moral superiority over crazed, stupid and unstable ordinary US gun owners. Despite the restrictive Mexican gun laws, the homicide rate there is multiples that of the USA.
As was pointed out by an earlier post; if you exclude the gang banging homicides from the porus US-Mexico border, the US homicide rate would be a lot closer to that of Canada.
Just wondering.
I used to be gmp I lost count of the amount of times I had to give fake reassurance to victims. Just call us as soon as possible and we will come.
Yes we will come, an hour after the incident we will come, meanwhile the victim is dead or dying.
Overstretched and underpaid, thank your socialist government for that.
It is also amusing that you think you have the right to tell a former colony how to live, we know what happened last time the crown imposed tyranny on us.
Yet you are still governed by this same evil monarchy, the same once that oversaw the disarming and enslavement of the UK people.
I am so glad I left that socialist s
thole.
Yes we will come, an hour after the incident we will come, meanwhile the victim is dead or dying.
Overstretched and underpaid, thank your socialist government for that.
It is also amusing that you think you have the right to tell a former colony how to live, we know what happened last time the crown imposed tyranny on us.
Yet you are still governed by this same evil monarchy, the same once that oversaw the disarming and enslavement of the UK people.
I am so glad I left that socialist s
thole.Corpulent Tosser said:
OpulentBob said:
Serious question to the people against controls.
Would there be much resistance to limiting a gun to say 3 bullets/cartridges/rounds/FMJs/(insert Rambo-ism for bullet here)?
For hunting, if you're any good, one, maybe two shots should be all you need.
For targets, you've got all the time in the world to reload - there is no real requirement to have more in the gun ready for instant use.
For self-defence, unless you're being mugged by a car full of people, again, a couple of shots should be enough. If you need 12 shots, then you'd need to be Quickdraw McGraw to actually take out half a dozen people - whenever you see YT videos of US cops shooting, they fire a dozen times and barely hit one target. If you're defending your home then one shot would have unarmed burglars running away.
I don't think there are any people on here who are against control, the question is what level of control is 1 Sensible. 2 Workable. 3 Has any chance of acceptance.Would there be much resistance to limiting a gun to say 3 bullets/cartridges/rounds/FMJs/(insert Rambo-ism for bullet here)?
For hunting, if you're any good, one, maybe two shots should be all you need.
For targets, you've got all the time in the world to reload - there is no real requirement to have more in the gun ready for instant use.
For self-defence, unless you're being mugged by a car full of people, again, a couple of shots should be enough. If you need 12 shots, then you'd need to be Quickdraw McGraw to actually take out half a dozen people - whenever you see YT videos of US cops shooting, they fire a dozen times and barely hit one target. If you're defending your home then one shot would have unarmed burglars running away.
Your idea of limiting the number of rounds would certainly be fought against in the US, I know I had my .45 rebarrelled to .38 so the magazine could carry a couple of extra rounds, that it actually made it a better gun to use was a bonus.
Just interested. No real axe to grind, a friend had a Beretta handgun here just before they were banned, I had no issue with it, but then I was about 15 and loved the Hollywood aspect of it. Age has obviously made me a little more safety conscious.
I competed in Practical Pistol competitions, the additional rounds meant I could decide when to fit a new magazine, the best time is when moving between shooting stations rather than while shooting at a station, your score is a result of where you hit targets and also the time taken.
The difference was 9 instead of 7 rounds.
The difference was 9 instead of 7 rounds.
Edited by Corpulent Tosser on Sunday 4th October 15:27
5ohmustang said:
I used to be gmp I lost count of the amount of times I had to give fake reassurance to victims. Just call us as soon as possible and we will come.
Yes we will come, an hour after the incident we will come, meanwhile the victim is dead or dying.
Overstretched and underpaid, thank your socialist government for that.
It is also amusing that you think you have the right to tell a former colony how to live, we know what happened last time the crown imposed tyranny on us.
Yet you are still governed by this same evil monarchy, the same once that oversaw the disarming and enslavement of the UK people.
I am so glad I left that socialist sthole.
Jesus fYes we will come, an hour after the incident we will come, meanwhile the victim is dead or dying.
Overstretched and underpaid, thank your socialist government for that.
It is also amusing that you think you have the right to tell a former colony how to live, we know what happened last time the crown imposed tyranny on us.
Yet you are still governed by this same evil monarchy, the same once that oversaw the disarming and enslavement of the UK people.
I am so glad I left that socialist s
thole.king Christ, do you want some sauce for that chip? Evil monarchy? Imposing tyranny? Enslavement of the UK people? What are you, 200 years old? I'm glad you left too. I think we're all better off without you. You sound unhinged, and dangerous, spouting the sort of s
te that one of these kids would leave in their "manifesto" before shooting up everyone in an English class or something. Sounds like you'll go fking spastic with your gat if you hear a British accent. "We" don't think of "you" as a former colony. That you think that shows what a victim mentality you (personally) have.
Gimp indeed.
Corpulent Tosser said:
I competed in Practical Pistol competitions, the additional rounds meant I could decide when to fit a new magazine, the best time is when moving between shooting stations rather than while shooting at a station, your score is a result of where you hit targets and also the time taken.
Fair enough. Would you (maybe not "you", but the everyday reasonable non-nutty non-survivalist gun-owner) entertain a proposal to limit the number of rounds in a gun you use for your hobby/sport, if it was proposed in the belief that it would reduce the severity (if not the frequency) of incidents like the school shootings? If the proposals were well explained, and not politicised? Maybe a competition centre/range could hold bigger magazines or something. Just musing really. There has got to be a way to stop people going in to schools or cinemas or shopping malls with 4 magazines and 120 bullets and killing stloads of innocent people. (I know the NRA would have us believe MORE guns are the answer, but I also think any sane person can see that it's really not.)ETA re reading that, it sounds like I'm accusing you of being a nutjob. Apologies. That wasn't the intention. I just wanted to get an idea of general opinion rather than drill you too hard on your own personal beliefs. I should have said "not you specifically" in my first sentence. No offence intended.
Edited by OpulentBob on Sunday 4th October 15:48
longshot said:
I wonder how many of those deaths were home owners who didn't own a gun being burgled?
Just wondering.
Just for the record, 2/3rds of victims of gunfire in the US are suicides. Guns are a damned sight more efficient than paracetamol and whisky!Just wondering.
Edited by YankeePorker on Sunday 4th October 15:42
I don't think it will ever happen but I would like to see every gun being kept in a secure gun safe when not in use, preferably with ammunition in a seperate safe.
The home owner having responsibility for the guns in his household to the extent that if one was used for a crime he/she would share responsibility.
Numerous problems with that though, many, probably most, guns in the US are not registered so how do you prove where the gun came from, the NRA will fight tooth and nail to keep the open and concealed carry laws in existence.
My guns were either in the safe or locked in the boot (trunk as it was the US) if I was going to/from a competition.
The home owner having responsibility for the guns in his household to the extent that if one was used for a crime he/she would share responsibility.
Numerous problems with that though, many, probably most, guns in the US are not registered so how do you prove where the gun came from, the NRA will fight tooth and nail to keep the open and concealed carry laws in existence.
My guns were either in the safe or locked in the boot (trunk as it was the US) if I was going to/from a competition.
OpulentBob said:
Serious question to the people against controls.
Would there be much resistance to limiting a gun to say 3 bullets/cartridges/rounds/FMJs/(insert Rambo-ism for bullet here)?
Almost all revolvers hold 5, 6 or 7 bullets so limiting them to 3 would be just weird. Plus there are millions of unregistered revolvers out there now anyway, so it's not like you can bring them back in and block up all bar three of the chambers. FMJ stands for full metal jacket btw, it is just a lead core bullet coated with a harder material such as copper or steel. Would there be much resistance to limiting a gun to say 3 bullets/cartridges/rounds/FMJs/(insert Rambo-ism for bullet here)?
Anyway, 3 is just a number and I'm sure you would be open to the idea of a different number, but still a magazine capacity limit. Magazines over 10 rounds were banned in 1994, but it was temporary legislation which has now expired and so they are now legal again except in states where they are still banned by state law. California law also currently requires a recessed magazine release button, so you can't just drop the magazine and insert another one, you have to insert some kind of pointed object (e.g. a key, a pen, tip of another bullet
) to drop the magazine. It slows down the time it takes to reload by a lot. As a further FYI, with the correct firearms certificate in the UK you can own a semi-automatic .22LR rifle with no magazine capacity limit.
5ohmustang said:
I used to be gmp I lost count of the amount of times I had to give fake reassurance to victims. Just call us as soon as possible and we will come.
Yes we will come, an hour after the incident we will come, meanwhile the victim is dead or dying.
Overstretched and underpaid, thank your socialist government for that.
It is also amusing that you think you have the right to tell a former colony how to live, we know what happened last time the crown imposed tyranny on us.
Yet you are still governed by this same evil monarchy, the same once that oversaw the disarming and enslavement of the UK people.
I am so glad I left that socialist sthole.
Such a loss for UK that you've left. Indescribable. Yes we will come, an hour after the incident we will come, meanwhile the victim is dead or dying.
Overstretched and underpaid, thank your socialist government for that.
It is also amusing that you think you have the right to tell a former colony how to live, we know what happened last time the crown imposed tyranny on us.
Yet you are still governed by this same evil monarchy, the same once that oversaw the disarming and enslavement of the UK people.
I am so glad I left that socialist s
thole.I didn't realise we could have unlimited semi auto 22 rimfires. I used to plink away with those in my mates garden (his father was the local gamekeeper and we used to go rabbiting on his land all the time), along with 410 shotguns. Although you've got to admit they're piss-weak and struggle to down a mixy rabbit, let alone a fully grown person! 
jjlynn27 said:
5ohmustang said:
I used to be gmp I lost count of the amount of times I had to give fake reassurance to victims. Just call us as soon as possible and we will come.
Yes we will come, an hour after the incident we will come, meanwhile the victim is dead or dying.
Overstretched and underpaid, thank your socialist government for that.
It is also amusing that you think you have the right to tell a former colony how to live, we know what happened last time the crown imposed tyranny on us.
Yet you are still governed by this same evil monarchy, the same once that oversaw the disarming and enslavement of the UK people.
I am so glad I left that socialist sthole.
Such a loss for UK that you've left. Indescribable. Yes we will come, an hour after the incident we will come, meanwhile the victim is dead or dying.
Overstretched and underpaid, thank your socialist government for that.
It is also amusing that you think you have the right to tell a former colony how to live, we know what happened last time the crown imposed tyranny on us.
Yet you are still governed by this same evil monarchy, the same once that oversaw the disarming and enslavement of the UK people.
I am so glad I left that socialist s
thole.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff