No he shot his grandfather first. As to the guard If the shooter walked over and shot him unexpectedly, which probably was what happened. Having a gun in a holster would would have made no difference. In any event I do not believe that was the cartoons message.
Note:"Second amendment scene"
OK, but at school he still shot the unarmed guard first.
Yes, but do you think an armed gaurd would have made the difference. Particulary since he shot him first. If he had started shooting students first and the guard had come upon the scene gun drawn it might have made a difference. However, that is not the way it went down.
There were metal detectors that went off. The guard should have immediatly drawn his weapon, if he had been armed. What can I say?
au1929 wrote:Yes, but do you think an armed gaurd would have made the difference. Particulary since he shot him first. If he had started shooting students first and the guard had come upon the scene gun drawn it might have made a difference. However, that is not the way it went down.
There is also no indication that he used 'cop killer' bullets, so I have to ask: Is it your position that whatever weapon the kid used during the shooting ought to be banned?
Thomas
It has nothing to do with cop killer ammunition. In this instance it was a gun taken from his grandfather. However, it is just one of the ongoing cases of shoot them up that happen around the nation. Gun ownership rules should be amended. For example locks on triggers to keep the unauthorized from being able to fire them.
He went in there unopposed. How did he know that? Gee, I'm not sure...
au1929 wrote:Thomas wrote:There is also no indication that he used 'cop killer' bullets, so I have to ask: Is it your position that whatever weapon the kid used during the shooting ought to be banned?
It has nothing to do with cop killer ammunition.
As best as I can tell, the only real definition of "cop killer" ammo, is that it is ammo that is fired at a cop.
So I would say that he used a combination of "guard killer" ammo and "kid killer" ammo.
au1929 wrote:Gun ownership rules should be amended. For example locks on triggers to keep the unauthorized from being able to fire them.
I'd be fine with that, so long as we
first halt the ongoing violations of our gun rights.
Swift wrote:Guns would not be for home defence (unless someone comes in with a gun) I think it is the same for all states (I know it is for MN, Ill, Neb, and Col.
The Law says that if someone comes into your house you must use equal or lesser force. so that means that you may not shoot a guy if he is comming at you to kill you with a knife (in your house) that is a stupid rule!
so the gun would not be for house defence or home security it would be for the street.
I think you are misunderstanding the law.
Equal force would include meeting a deadly threat with lethal force.
If someone is coming at you with a knife, they are a deadly threat that can be met with the lethal force of a gun.
The same if they don't have any weapon, but are much more powerful than you (of course, presuming they are violently attacking you when you shoot).
.
Hahahaha, are you ignoring me au?
Ignore you, why do you feel neglected. I would not want to interfere with you preparations for the imagined required revolution. Your reasons for the need of gun ownership are IMO ludicrous and childlike that makes them not worth further discussion if indeed any is possible.
.
I want you to try something new au. Its' really radical, you make a claim or a state a position. And then, get this, you back it up with evidence or elaborate on why you assert that position. This also goes hand in hand with responding to the specific points made in an argument you oppose.
Ok so lets walk through this, you think that the purpose of the Militia is ludicrous and childlike. Now, instead of just leaving it at that, you elaborate. You say why, and you give evidence to make your statement agreeable. And then, you look at the argument you're responding too. Hmm, Ivory claims numerous times that gun control laws that prevent the citizenry from being effective in executing their 2nd Amendment responsibilities and privileges are unconstitutional. He's given his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment and shown quotes showing that Founding Fathers were of the same mindset when writing that amendment. Now we can refute this argument any number of ways, it is your choice AU. Or you can say ok, they may be unconstitutional, but I take issue with the purpose of a People's Militia being used to prevent tyranny.
So from here we can go on to show that armed civilians cannot in fact prevent tyranny, and/or will not need too. Ivory has given some evidence for as to how armed civilians can be effective in combatting tyranny and why they will need to be with historical evidence. Sounds like something that can be refuted with a good argument au.
As for an armed guard being ineffective for the shootings, unless they splattered his brains all over the wall/floor, he would still be able to pull out his gun and fire before dying. The gunshots would alert staff who can then get the kids to evacuate in the other direction and cover them with their arms.
.
Apologies for the double post.
oralloy wrote:cjhsa wrote:Some (date unknown) info on Australia.
"From: Ed Chenel, A police officer in Australia:
Hi Yanks, I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under. It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars.
The first year results are now in: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent, Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent; Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not! and criminals still possess their guns!)
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms,! this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly.
Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns." "
That is a famous letter that circulated, but I think it is only partially correct.
Homicides are down there (but only slightly).
It is true that assaults went up, but they had been climbing by the same rate before the draconian gun laws.
Robbery (both armed and unarmed) however, did go WAY up when they passed the draconian gun laws.
The letter is a crock, it has been exposed as garbage. Not only is it a crock it is full of false data. Also the data about homicides and other crimes is all over the place. We aren't a gun-conscious society so all this is just so much babble.
Having said that - both the gun buyback programmes were examples of bad policy, but not for the reasons the pro-gun people might think. It was bad policy because it was a typical Howard-government kneejerk populist reaction that was purely cosmetic and did absolutely nothing useful. Both buybacks alienated a lot of law-abiding gun owners but had absolutely no effect either way on crime.
goodfielder wrote:Having said that - both the gun buyback programmes were examples of bad policy, but not for the reasons the pro-gun people might think. It was bad policy because it was a typical Howard-government kneejerk populist reaction that was purely cosmetic and did absolutely nothing useful. Both buybacks alienated a lot of law-abiding gun owners but had absolutely no effect either way on crime.
Which is typical of any anti-gun legislation.
Why not ban doctors? They kill lots more people than guns do.
Quote:Which is typical of any anti-gun legislation.
Why not ban doctors? They kill lots more people than guns do.
What's "anti-gun" legislation? The legislation we have in my jurisdiction which licences owners/users and registers firearms is very good legislation which strikes the right balance. It was developed in consultation with firearms owners groups and other interested parties which is probably why it's useful and non-controversial. Howard's two big stupidly populist and useless leaps into this area were examples of how not to institute firearms policy. I do believe in the rigorous control of firearms use by legislation, I just don't agree with what Howard did - twice.
As to the doctors, well, not much of a comparison. Doctors are on the whole supposed to save lives. Guns are - well - guns are for killing things.
Does that make sense?
goodfielder wrote:As to the doctors, well, not much of a comparison. Doctors are on the whole supposed to save lives. Guns are - well - guns are for killing things.
Does that make sense?
I think its logic is invalid, and does not address what cjha meant (though he would be a better judge of that). For analogy, consider this argument about the design of cars: "Gas pedals are on the whole supposed to speed up your car. Breaks are - well - breaks are for slowing down". It sounds convincing because that's the immediate effect of a break. But the statement is silly as a description of the break's net effect, which is to speed up your car on average. The owner knows that there is a break, expects he can slow down the car whenever he needs to, so can drive much faster in the intervals between hitting the breaks, when he doesn't need to slow down.
Similar logic applies to the control of guns, which have the immediate effect to injure, but which also have indirect effects through changing people's expectations. A plausible argument has been made by scholars like John Lott and Gary Kleck that gun possession by law-abiding citizens discourages violent crime. There is no consensus among criminologists and statisticians that this is true -- but if it is, guns may well be net savers of life, even if the immediate consequence of their use is to injure and kill.
Yes it's probably invalid logic but putting forward a structurally valid argument wasn't exactly what I was getting at Thomas.
I have to admit that I don't understand the point of the gun control debate in the US context. To use a hackneyed phrase, the genie is well and truly out of the bottle. People who support gun control in the US are noble and idealistic but they're not in touch with reality. If I lived in the US I would want access to a weapon 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, at home, in my car, when I went for a walk to the pub, when I was shopping and so on. I would want the biggest, meanest, fastest weapon I could afford, with a couple of backup weapons just in case. I would be a Second Amendment nut.
But here where I live - at the risk of sounding smug - gun control can and does work. Our legislation isn't "anti-gun", it does control private ownership and use in a manner that the average gun-aware American would find abhorrent. But within the culture here it's accepted. I do, however, remain less than impressed - as I've indicated, by the Howard Government responses to two tragic events. Both events caused bad policy reactions by the Howard Government and the states and territories which went along with his plans.
I'm now waiting for the "cars kill people, why not ban cars?" retort. To which I'll probably say, "but cars aren't designed to kill people, merely transport them." I know I'd get a fail in Logic 101 but it wouldn't be the first time.
Guns are just a tool. I use mine to trim trees. Works pretty well.
