1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Another School Shooting, 17 dead

Discussion in 'Society and Culture' started by ethics, Feb 14, 2018.

  1. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Columbine was 13 dead, this is the deadliest now.

    By my count, and please correct me if I am wrong:

    Parkland school shooting: AR-15
    Texas church shooting: AR-15
    Las Vegas shooting: AR-15
    Orlando nightclub shooting: AR-15
    Sandy Hook shooting: AR-15

    What is the argument of keeping AR-15 legal?

    Please remember this is me you are stating this to, a firm believer in 2nd amendment.
  2. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Because there is no reason to outlaw it. If it was a truly unique type rifle or firearm and there were no other weapons like it than serious consideration should be given to outlawing it or denying its use to Joe Blow. There are dozens and dozens of rifles that are similar in type or for use that the AR-15 was designed for and would replace it if it was outlawed.

    In the shooting listed had there been no AR-15 there would have been some other similar or as deadly weapons theoretically available.
  3. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    I get your point, but no other rifle is being used save for AR-15, which -- IMHO -- already makes it unique?
  4. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I don't think Ethics means a specific model. One of the shootings was a semi auto handgun and the others were semi-automatic rifles of various makes. The press pretty much only knows AR-15 style and AK-47 style. It think it pointless to blame the press as the semi-automatic nature of the guns and large magazine capacities are what allows so many shots to be fired so quickly.

    I am also a strong 2nd Amendment supporter but I have to admit this many school shootings in such a short span gives me pause. I cannot think of a way to get guns out of the hands of those who would misuse them. I am not sure that the right to bear arms is more important than the lives of our children but that thought still does not connect to ways to make it happen.
    jimeez and ethics like this.
  5. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old school Conservative

    It is not the weapon.

    Like the guy in The Dark Tower says, “I don’t kill with my gun. I kill with my heart.”

    If we were able to make every semi-auto magazine-fed rifle disappear, we would still have killings in school. They would use handguns, explosives, knives, whatever.

    Don’t focus on the weapon. Focus on the heart of the killer. Address why they have the need to express their problems with violence like this and the school shootings will disappear.

    Until we get their hearts straight, get rid of the gun-free zones and post signs like this.
    cdw likes this.
  6. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    No. It's often and certainly not always just the most conveniently available and some cases where it's listed just the most PROMINENT weapon of an inventory that was either used with it or not. Look at all the mass murders in the world the past 30 years and I bet my life more were committed where there was no AR-15.

    If there were no AR-15 there is no reasonable or sound reason to believe that everyone of the above shootings and mass murders would not still have taken place. The only thing distinctive or special about the AR-15 is the class of weapons it belongs to.

    Put another way the AR-15 has nothing to do with mass murders. It is just the most high-profile weapon used. For instance at the University of Virginia mass murder one man using two-handguns killed 32 people and wounded another 17 others, (47 people shot.)

    In fact, and I use the following only to attempt a POV analysis and not to be grim or blood thirsty, if I were to choose to commit a mass murder at close range and in an enclosed or semi-enclosed surrounding my weapon of choice would be several handguns--more efficient than any semi-auto rifle like the AR-15.

    Breivik used a couple of handguns and one Mini-14 carbine to shoot dead 69 people, I don't know how many he wounded. The list with similar themes is endless.

    If you research all mass murders there are a wide variety of numerous different primary weapons. But "assault rifles" and AK-47 or AR-15 and Glock pistols are what the media focuses on, especially in the long run.

    I appreciate your post and it's a great topic. My response is just that, my response to the question and topic, not a put down of discussing it or the merits of discussing it. I think it is an outstanding topic.

    In closing I would say when we focus on a weapon or specific type of weapon in mass murders were are off target. We unintentionally are taking aim at the wrong problem in mass shootings. In mass shootings the type of gun is not the issue or the problem IMO.

    Killed by gunshot. If it happens one is just as dead no matter the type of bullet or the weapon it came from or the motive of the killer.

    ADDENDUM just for additional reference or thought: No AR-15 or other assault rifles at Columbine. Four or five other weapons.
    Last edited: Feb 14, 2018
  7. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    While over the top (and posted here before), this pretty much sums up how the press views firearms.


    You could ban every type of assault rifle made, and there will still be mass shootings. One doesn't need an AR15 or AK47 to have a high capacity weapon.

    And the press has totally lost all credibility when it comes to reporting these shootings. Rather than lock stepping into the liberal mantra of no guns, the media would do a huge service if they'd start focusing on mental health issues and why it's so damned hard to get effective treatment in the US.
    Susan Addams likes this.
  8. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I remember Reagan had something to do with wholesale release of patients from mental institutions. I googled it and found many references that back that up. I thought of posting some but until we have a government who cares about any health issues the discussion of helping the mentally ill is pointless.
    ethics likes this.
  9. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    Only in this case, the signs were there and proper intervention could very well have saved lives.

    The Latest: Students describe shooting suspect as troubled

  10. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Left Coast Fiscal Conservative

    What is the argument of keeping Ginsu knives legal? Somebody could walk into Bed, Bath & Beyond and buy a great big chef's knife, then walk out in the parking lot and stab several or a couple dozen people no problem at all. (Except for the stabees.)

    I could take my car and mow down a dozen people in a crosswalk any day. Do you want to make cars illegal?

    The problem isn't the chunk of steel called an AR-15, it's the piece of crap that is holding it. The problem is people, not guns. Take away guns and you still have people so you still have the problem. All you're doing is changing the most popular implement to a different one. If they don't have guns they'll use knives or cars.

    It's the same thing as trying to fix the healthcare problem by trying to fix healthcare insurance. Good idea, wrong target.
  11. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Left Coast Fiscal Conservative

    What makes it unique is that it has a good design.

    What is the use of putting a safety warning sticker on a machine designed to kill people? If you use it and it doesn't kill people then there is something defective about it.

    "Warning: This device may not kill people if you use it incorrectly."
  12. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Correct. Sorry I wasn't as specific.

    I am wondering what is the need of semi-automatic weapons in the hands of civilians vs law enforcement. As someone coming from a gun free enforced society of Soviet Union, this should give everyone a pause (but it won't). Everyone is fixated on the messenger and not the questions being posed.

    And please do not give me the crap about knives? The question is of efficiency. Cars used as weapons in NYC were sensational but died quickly because cars do not make a good weapon no matter who or where they are driven (save for that France incident with the truck). We are talking about efficiency in killing kids.
    jimeez likes this.
  13. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Well shit man, I spent a lot of time and effort and composing my last lengthy response post to you specifically referring to the AR-15. :(

    Now my post is worthless. I mean I only have so many posts left in me and especially any that are longer than a paragraph or are not boilerplate.

    As to your clarification and the issue of semi-auto all I will say since I'm all "typed out" is why would anyone buy a SIG Sauer P220 semi-auto instead of a revolver for protection of self and family? :p
  14. Biker

    Biker Administrator Staff Member

    7 shots vs 5. Those extra two rounds could make the difference between whether your family survives or not. I'll keep the .45, thankyouverymuch.

    It doesn't matter what you try to ban, as once you start to do so, it makes it even easier for those who are totally against gun ownership to get additional firearms added to the list. Is there a need? Who knows. Am I willing to give up my 7 round .45 in favor of a revolver? No.

    Besides, firearms are totally inefficient when it comes to mass murders. Think Andrew Kehoe (Bath school bombing) and Timothy McVeigh (OKC).
    cdw likes this.
  15. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Left Coast Fiscal Conservative

    It's not crap. People are killer apes. Even chimps kill other chimps.

    It's in our genes. There is no way to fix people killing people. With our amazing technology we individuals have too much power to kill if we want to. Sure, restrict your "machine guns." You already need to try hard to get permit to possess a full auto machine gun. (They can be gotten.) Or you can just buy a bumper and your semi-auto can be full auto if you know how to hold it right. Or just order the kit and convert your semi-auto to full auto. Good luck if you get caught holding that.

    Semi-auto is not a machine gun. More correctly they are called self loaders. Fire a round and your firearm chambers another round. You have a magazine. It holds X rounds. It keeps firing as long as you keep pulling the trigger until the magazine is empty. 5 rounds, 7 rounds, 11, 13, whatever. Think about this: are you the perpetrator, are you the victim, are you defending your family or friends? If you are the perp you want more rounds to kill people. If you are protecting your family you want as much power to kill perps until they are dead and bleeding out on your floor and your friends and family are safe.

    All this talk about magazine capacity is bullshit. A common revolver holds 6 rounds and just how is that working for you? In my book 6 rounds equals 6 dead people. I could do a lot better than that with my car or with a Ginsu from Bed, Bath and Beyond.

    All this talk about magazine capacity is just liberal bullshit. And semi-automatic weapons are not machine guns.
  16. MemphisMark

    MemphisMark Old school Conservative

    You unwittingly hit the nail on the head. It really is the populace vs. the government.

    The 2nd Amendment was written so that the citizens could fight back if the government grew too powerful and overbearing. It was the intent of the Founding Fathers that the ordinary citizen be as well armed as the standard regular Army Infantryman. In 1776, militias were privately funded by well-to-do men. The private ownership of cannons was not uncommon. Try civilian ownership of an operational 105mm howitzer today and see how far you get.

    The armed citizen is able to put an exclamation point after the word "NO" when the government tries to take things it has no power to take.

    Just remember, on the opening day of deer season in Pennsylvania alone, there are more men in the field who can hit a dinner plate at 150 yards and enough fieldcraft to disappear into the foliage, than there are all of the infantry in any army of the world.

    Gun-grabbers know that a direct assault on our rights and weapons will mean they are vastly outnumbered (and outgunned). Their goal is to convince us to give our weapons up. I am not saying or insinuating that "they" are causing and orchestrating these mass shootings, rather they take maximum advantage of them to further their cause.
  17. ShinyTop

    ShinyTop I know what is right or wrong!

    I agree that the founding fathers enacted the 2nd Amendment to allow the citizens to defend against a tyrannical government, although I have to admit it is an opinion I cannot provide any proof of.

    But, Mark, thinking the citizenry could defeat the armed forces is the stuff of day dreams. If the military remained loyal to the government it would be a no brainer that the organization and training of the military would prevail. It would be no contest for control of all but the hinterlands and that would be accomplished in time.

    The electronics and air power of a trained military is overwhelming when properly employed. Additionally it would not be a homogeneous force they would be fighting. There would be organized groups here and there but there would also be splinter groups and splinters of those groups. The majority of the country would remain either loyal or neutral. They are too comfortable to consider the kind of guerrilla war that would be necessary to offer more than token resistance.

    We have to win at the polls or have an entirely different kind of government.
    ethics and Allene like this.
  18. Andy


    People screaming on camera for "trump to do something NOW" seem to forget that they just had a President for 8 years that couldn't "do something" either.

    That's not how the law works, unfortunately, but it sure makes for good soundbites on CNN and MSNBC.

    Even more, sure, let's play Constitutional Miracle, somehow tomorrow we are able to completely strip every law abiding citizen of their Constitutional rights overnight, just because of a few people that shouldn't be breathing oxygen anymore.

    What right will be next that we just "take away" since we now set precedence, because a few people can't belong to a normal society?

    I'll make you all a deal, before you round up a posse and go kicking in every law abiding citizen's door to illegally seize property, how about we round up all the terrorists, gang bangers, drug dealers, rapists, pedos, drunk driver/killers and murderers and fill the Grand Canyon with their rotting corpses, then make all of those crimes punishable by immediate death right on the courthouse steps, then we'll talk about unarming people who weren't doing anything wrong in the first place.

    Oh, what's that?

    Those criminals have rights?

    Funny, how that works.
    Allene likes this.
  19. Susan Addams

    Susan Addams Left Coast Fiscal Conservative

    I think most people will agree that the Constitutional right was intended to provide the people with the means to take back their government by force if the government becomes tyrannical like the government we escaped from, that of King George III.

    However, let's be real, people. Today in America the populace has what the military calls "small arms." These are for the most part .50 cal maximum. It is possible in limited cases that some civilians may obtain larger weapons but they are extreme exceptions. The most commonly held large caliber weapon is probably the model 1911, designed by Colt in that year and now made by many manufacturers, most notably Kimber. (I might own a Lady Smith but I'm not telling. No they don't make Lady Smith in .45 cal. If I were to play with numbers I might come up with the number 380 not that I'm into numerology. A lady has to have her secrets.)

    The idea that our populace could take back our government is ludicrous, or at least unless the military joins us. Our biggest serious weapons end where the US military's serious weapons begin.

    That said, we can quibble about magazine sizes until we are blue in the face. The same high cap mags that allow killers to decimate large numbers of people allow an innocent victim the fire power to take one or more perpetrators down. You are just not going to get anywhere arguing max magazine sizes. Goose meet gander.

    The problem isn't the weapons. The problem is the people. You can't fix people by addressing weapons regulations. If you want to fix the problem you have to focus on the people. Probably 99.9 percent of all legal gun owners are responsible people who would never commit a crime, people who use their firearms for personal defense and some for hunting.

    Oh yes, hunting. If you can't kill an innocent deer from a blind with a 4 round mag then you don't deserve to eat venison.

    I think a reasonable mag capacity for civilian hand weapons is whatever fits in the pistol grip, perhaps 20 maximum. For rifles, no banana clips. Maybe 20 is a good number. Remember if the number is 10 the perp just gets two or three or however many clips he wants. Limiting magazine size isn't going to get you anything but the illusion that you have accomplished something.

    The problem isn't guns. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Unfortunately you can't fix people, all you can do is fix one person at a time. Remember I have a BA degree in Psych. Sorry to say, I have no idea why people snap and do things such as we are discussing. Perhaps they teach that in grad school.
    Allene likes this.
  20. Arc

    Arc Full Member

    Shiny, it's not about some mass of civilian society fighting the military to protect itself against a systemic tyrannical government it is about out of control elements of the government like, for one example, the ATF attack on the Branch Davidian Mount Carmel Church Center and residence in Waco Texas.

    Seventy-Six ATF Agents loaded to the teeth in full tactical equipment under some facts but many false and illegal pretenses, (which they dishonestly used to obtain a warrant), launched an assault on the Church Center in 1993. The church members had an arsenal of light arms at their disposal. The end result was the ATF raid was completely repulsed and were only saved from being wiped out when the agents after running out of ammo in the intense fighting the Davidians allowed them to retreat from the scene across wide open ground fully covered by the line of fire of the Davidians. Had the Davidians been the threat and the evil people that the ATF tried to sell to the public they could have shot every ATF Agent.

    The FBI took over after the ATF withdrew and held off raiding the Church Complex for 51 days in part because of the firepower inside. When the FBI did finally move in they came with tanks or armored vehicles and fire support. They killed 80 people including two dozen children.
    Last edited: Feb 17, 2018
    Allene likes this.

Share This Page