Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Las Vegas Oct 2017 mass shooting

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by zraver View Post
    I haven't advocated that armed teacher alone would stop rampage killers. I had always said they should be included as part of a holistic approach to hardening schools against attacks. Simple fact is, if the doors and other passive defenses fail, its a shooting spree until someone with a gun puts a stop to it. The Florida shooting lasted for 3 minutes and was over minutes before the first cop arrived. Every armed teacher is a classroom that becomes one with active defenses.
    I should get those women teachers and principal I know to come onto this thread just so you can hear their opinion. Believe me your idea is a big no starter with them.

    Of course, all that is just one diversion to avoid a ban on assault rifles. The other diversion is that it doesn't work. However, there is absolutely no proof that a ban would or would not work. Simple enough to solve and easy to set up. Ban the damn things for 20 years which will give a good long term study at which point one side will be proven right. However, I suspect you are too scared to implement such a study because you might be proven wrong. That will bring out the third diversion about your 2nd Amendment Right, which in reality is not being infringed.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
      Looking at the enforcement, failure to transfer via FFL only results in a fine, not jailtime. Without a national gun registry (good luck with that one), this is almost useless. Violators getting caught are slim and is a slap on the wrist.
      I agree but now at least there is a legal framework to stop fraudulent purchases where previously there were none for private sales.

      Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
      The specifics is a danger to self or others or mentally incompetent, meaning you cannot survive without guidance, ie danger to self, example, don't know when to feed yourself.

      A combat veteran seeking PTSD help from a VA hospital would not be on that list.
      Anyone with an SSN getting federal benefits for mental disorders would be pulled in. I don't know the process for Combat vets

      Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
      The ACLU is prepared to fight any such legislation. I really don't see how this would pass the SCUS. The Republicans who opposed this is not about setting up an appeal but setting up the due process. They want the due process to prove that you should be denied your consitutional right to be bear arms, ie innocent until proven guilty.
      The point is that with the right compromises it would pass. i like the apeals bit too and I wish that be extended to non firearms related cases too. A 4 year old should be able to apeal a travel ban. You are right that this would be challenged in court, but I would like to see how that plays out.

      Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
      I do but the problem is that for most, men especially, mental health is a cop out, a coward. Even amongst combat veterans, it was looked upon as cowardice. Patton once ordered that anyone claiming shell shock would be charged with cowardice and emptied a hospital. In small armies like the British, Canadian, and Australian, it was a career and retirement killer. Not that you can't get help but you're not doing the work that needs doing and the army will find someone who can.

      You, yourself, said the kid deserves an afternoon in a penal yard and a lethal injection.

      Mental health is an unseen disease and cost lives. Robin Williams was such a victim and after going through my own episodes, I can see my views before and after. Most obviously, I want my health money going towards stopping heart attacks and not towards a kid who didn't hugged his mommy enough but now, I can recognize that kid was a time bomb and no one recognized it, especially not the kid
      Do you distinguish between pure evil and mental health? This guy pulled the alarm to bring out kids so as to be better able to shoot them, moved from floor to floor and room to room and then blended in to escape. He is not your suicide by cop guy. Neither is he getting an insanity defence. Maybe we should have put Saddam in a mental home instead of hanging him...

      Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
      It's a dangerous society when only government instruments such as the police and the military have access to lethal resources and the citizenry do not. It is not what the people in the military signed up for. The 2A specifically addresses this issue by including the language, well regulated militia.

      Contrary to popular belief, semi-auto assault rifles are available to Canadian citizens but you have to jump through hoops to do so but it's no more bureaucratic than getting an Class Protected Clearance.

      It's easy to ban the SLIDEFIRE Bump Stock. After all, they have the patten and you can ban the patten but how do ban the concept? Every attempt to ban the concept today sounds like you're trying to ban a rubber band.
      Do you draw any lines? If you really believe this, are you comfortable with civilians owning Abrams, Apaches and Raptors if they can afford it? what about missile systems for billionaires?

      Many OECD countries do not allow civilians to own military style weapons. Are they all dangerous places?

      Lets point out more hypocrisy. There was a CDC team collecting data on gun violence and researching ways to stop/ minimize them. Who do you think cut off their funding? That's right, the Republicans, backed by the NRA. BEfore policymaking, you need data. The NRA does not even want research done in this field. They are monsters.
      Last edited by antimony; 19 Feb 18,, 07:47.
      "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

      Comment


      • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
        I should get those women teachers and principal I know to come onto this thread just so you can hear their opinion. Believe me your idea is a big no starter with them.

        Of course, all that is just one diversion to avoid a ban on assault rifles. The other diversion is that it doesn't work. However, there is absolutely no proof that a ban would or would not work. Simple enough to solve and easy to set up. Ban the damn things for 20 years which will give a good long term study at which point one side will be proven right. However, I suspect you are too scared to implement such a study because you might be proven wrong. That will bring out the third diversion about your 2nd Amendment Right, which in reality is not being infringed.
        An assault rifle is a made up term. The more we use it, the more we show our ignorance and therefore inability to do anything.
        "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

        Comment


        • Originally posted by antimony View Post
          Lets point out more hypocrisy. There was a CDC team collecting data on gun violence and researching ways to stop/ minimize them. Who do you think cut off their funding? That's right, the Republicans, backed by the NRA. BEfore policymaking, you need data. The NRA does not even want research done in this field. They are monsters.
          Actually, I just figured out our disconnect. Here's a question for you. Supposed you get everything you asked for. Would it stop me?
          Chimo

          Comment


          • Originally posted by zraver View Post
            There is zero way to prove that claim. You had a one off event and haven't had one since. Is that due to the ban or your culture. Given the rarity of the event before it happened it would logically point to culture. The fact that your eventual next bad man has to use a truck won't lower the victim count. Several countries with very tough gun laws have seen repeated mass killings by both guns and other means.
            Z, firstly I misspoke when I used the 'preventing' a better term would be 'drastically reduce'. A mass shooting (defined as 3 or more victims could obviously still occur in Australia - God forbid) but even then the chances double digit fatalities or injuries is remote.

            You can review the statistics if you like - no double digit or even high single figure shootings since the ban. The problem is it will take some time for this to become indisputable simple because of the rarity of these events in Australia. We are dealing with a much smaller population sample than the US and a much smaller pool of firearms and firearm owners.

            As for the rest as I stated an auto loader ban is a solution (or potential solution) to one specific subset of gun crime and not a panacea for all types of gun crime - just the same way that mandatory pool fencing and safety gates can have had a significant impact on back yard drownings but zero impact on drowning stats for beaches, rivers and lakes etc.

            I also note that a ban on auto loading rifles in the US even if enforced would also have to be accompanied by restrictions on the ownership of pistols to be fully effective. This is because they have been used in mass shootings in the US in the past and (obviously) in the absence of auto-firing rifles would be the 'weapon of choice' for future would be mass murderers. It follow that a ban on rifles while highly effective at reducing mass shootings at the top end of the scale (think Sandy Hook etc up to Las Vegas) wouldn't necessarily stop mass shootings with casualty figures at the lower end of the scale (think single figures as if this wasn't bad enough). So in summary a long arm ban would have an impact but it wouldn't have the same impact in the US as it does here because pistol ownership is highly regulated in this country. Off the top of my head can't think of one mass shooting in Australia that involved the use of a pistol - and please take home whatever lesson you want from that statistic.

            End of the day though as I said - its up to the US if it want's to implement these kind of bans and restrictions because;

            A) they are expensive - you can't just arbitrarily seize the weapons, they have to be purchased by the State and almost certainly at a premium over face value which is what happened here.
            B) Even if implemented an auto ban would have little or no impact on the other 99+% of gun crime types in the US.

            All WAB members outside of the US simply have to watch the impact of these crimes unfolding, it's you and other Americans who have to live with them.
            Last edited by Monash; 19 Feb 18,, 10:54.
            If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by zraver View Post
              There is zero way to prove that claim. You had a one off event and haven't had one since. Is that due to the ban or your culture. Given the rarity of the event before it happened it would logically point to culture. The fact that your eventual next bad man has to use a truck won't lower the victim count. Several coun tries with very tough gun laws have seen repeated mass killings by both guns and other means.
              We didn't have a one off event, we had a series of events. There were 13 mass shootings (5 or more dead) in the space of 14 years. One of them happened a few minutes from my house and a few hours after my Dad drove past on his daily commute. Two years later another happened slightly further away. Mass shootings were a regular part of life here.

              Every time one of these happened we were told that people kill, not guns & had our concerns fobbed off as a 'knee jerk' reaction. Then a young man in Tasmania, the state with some of the most lax gun laws, used a gun he legally purchased to kill 36 people. That wasn't one event, it was one too many. We decided to stop listening to the empty arguments and distractions of the pro-gun lobby and actually do something about it. We decided to ignore the argument that not solving every problem means we shouldn't attempt to solve any. Fuck 'thoughts & prayers', we acted.

              Twenty years on not a single repeat and no evidence of 'substitution'. That isn't culture, it is effective legislation. Don't feel that you need to follow suit, but don't misrepresent what happened here simply because you don't want to.
              sigpic

              Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

              Comment


              • Originally posted by antimony View Post
                An assault rifle is a made up term. The more we use it, the more we show our ignorance and therefore inability to do anything.
                What would you call a short, compact selective-fire weapon that fires a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges, sports a detachable box magazine and is effective to a minimum of 300 meters?

                Since WWII, it’s been called an assault rifle.
                Trust me?
                I'm an economist!

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Bigfella View Post
                  Twenty years on not a single repeat and no evidence of 'substitution'. That isn't culture, it is effective legislation. Don't feel that you need to follow suit, but don't misrepresent what happened here simply because you don't want to.
                  Sorry, your statement is completely false. I would agree with you if you said "successful" repeat but Australians did try "substitution." The fact that these perps failed does not mean that they gave up just because of a ban.

                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_Australia
                  Chimo

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by WABs_OOE View Post
                    Actually, I just figured out our disconnect. Here's a question for you. Supposed you get everything you asked for. Would it stop me?
                    Define yourself. A military officer with decades of experience in handling and dismantling explosives combined with tactical training that provides the ability to spot weaknesses in a security system and then forming a plan of attack? Probably not

                    A troubled teen without access to any of that? Probably. If something is sufficiently difficult or dangerous, many will not do it. Also, it is incorrect to equate the motives of a terrorist with that of killers like this. One wants to ensure (and in his minds, probably his victims) place in heaven for eternity (or whatever it is they believe in), the other is mad because his friends mocked him.

                    Your approach is essentially the "why bother" approach. If nothing will deter no one, why bother having security systems in the first place? The answer is that these systems and procedures make things progressively more dificult.

                    If I have murderous thoughts and a gun, I can immediately act on it. If I do not have that that gun, then I will have to think of other ways. I suppose I can take a truck and just ram it inside the school. But if the school has protective barriers then I cannot do that. SO I have to consider something else. And so on it goes. If I am sufficiently motivated, like a soldier or terrorist, then I keep trying. If not, I would probably get distracted and give up. Lives get saved.
                    "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by antimony View Post
                      Define yourself. A military officer with decades of experience in handling and dismantling explosives combined with tactical training that provides the ability to spot weaknesses in a security system and then forming a plan of attack? Probably not
                      Why do you assume that your perp will always be an idiot?

                      Originally posted by antimony View Post
                      Your approach is essentially the "why bother" approach. If nothing will deter no one, why bother having security systems in the first place? The answer is that these systems and procedures make things progressively more dificult.
                      No. My approach is to do something so that it will stop someone like me. I always assume that whomever I'm facing is as smart as I am, if not smarter.

                      What you're proposing is not even a speed bump for those who can think things through. You're just proposing "Do something, anything."
                      Last edited by Officer of Engineers; 19 Feb 18,, 17:35.
                      Chimo

                      Comment


                      • You know something? This is a suburb problem. The one city with an extremely high gang violence, New York City, has metal detectors and they have been effective. Meaning that this is an effective barrier to gang violence within their schools.
                        Chimo

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                          What would you call a short, compact selective-fire weapon that fires a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges, sports a detachable box magazine and is effective to a minimum of 300 meters?

                          Since WWII, it’s been called an assault rifle.
                          I could not find a standard definition. Here is what Wikipedia says

                          Semi-automatic firearm capable of accepting a detachable magazine[10][13]
                          Folding or telescoping (collapsible) stock,[13] which reduces the overall length of the firearm[15]
                          A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon[13]
                          Bayonet lug,[13] which allows the mounting of a bayonet
                          Threaded barrel, which can accept devices such as a flash suppressor, Suppressor,[13] compensator or muzzle brake
                          Grenade launcher[13]
                          Barrel shroud, which prevents burning of shooter's arm or hand as a safety device.[citation needed]

                          What do pisol grips, bayonet lugs etc. have to do with anything? What if the rifle is fed by stripper clips instead of magazines? In the '94 AWB and in suggested replacement, AR styles were banned while Mini 14s in .223 were protected.

                          Pro-Gun advocates will be looking for loopholes like this to paint the whole idea as absurd. Therefore gun control advocates need to be precise. I am for banning all semi- auto rifles. AS the Col. said, that would affect some hunting rifles, but that is the price that we may have to pay. Maybe we can have an NFA type tax and registration regime for semi-autos, just like we have for full autos now.
                          "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" ~ Epicurus

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by antimony View Post
                            Pro-Gun advocates will be looking for loopholes like this to paint the whole idea as absurd. Therefore gun control advocates need to be precise. I am for banning all semi- auto rifles. AS the Col. said, that would affect some hunting rifles, but that is the price that we may have to pay. Maybe we can have an NFA type tax and registration regime for semi-autos, just like we have for full autos now.
                            Ok, does double barrel fit your description? How about a revolver rifle?
                            Chimo

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by antimony View Post
                              An assault rifle is a made up term.
                              Well excuse me I'm sorry if I wasn't precise enough for you. Are there better terms, that meet with your approval, to use on this "particular" forum so that you might understand what I was referring to?


                              The more we use it, the more we show our ignorance and therefore inability to do anything.

                              So let me get this straight are you now providing a fourth excuse/diversion it is hard to tell? Seems to me everything in this thread is a diversion, while waiting for things to blow over, and then wash, rinse and repeat over and over. I suspect that is the goal for some right up till the day it gets personal.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                                What would you call a short, compact selective-fire weapon that fires a cartridge intermediate in power between submachine gun and rifle cartridges, sports a detachable box magazine and is effective to a minimum of 300 meters?

                                Since WWII, it’s been called an assault rifle.
                                Do you understand what select fire means?
                                Those who know don't speak
                                He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. Luke 22:36

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X