It's a sad day (Virginia University shootings, 16 April) [Archive]

jrandom

17th April 2007, 09:35

Tragic news? Hardly. Any country that refuses to sort its gun "ownership" issues can expect events like this to occur regularly. And they do.

Fucking gun control blah blah fucking blah. I really think we shouldn't bother retreading the usual to-and-fro on the subject. The same discussion already exists on hundreds of other forums. In fact, we've done it here, too.

I was thinking this question through on the way into work this morning. Two points stand out:

Firstly, in the USA's case, the horse bolted out the barn door many decades ago. There are enough guns floating around in private ownership to keep the citizenry armed for the next century. If I were living there, I wouldn't bother changing the law. Words on paper can't return the horse to the barn. Personally, I'd just want to be able to shoot back.

What would have happened if the first teacher that had seen the attacker draw his weapon had been able to start a gunfight instead of just getting shot and dying? A hell of a lot less bodies, that's what.

And secondly, the Founding Fathers fucked up with the Second Amendment. It may have made sense at the time it was written, but the twentieth century showed that the times are a-changin'. Giving a populace the 'right' to go forth permanently armed is insane. It behooves other nations to avoid similar mistakes when considering the issue.

Paul in NZ

17th April 2007, 09:38

Seriously - people are beginning to scare me....

jrandom

17th April 2007, 09:38

imdying

17th April 2007, 09:49

Works better if you solder in a tyre valve and pump in compressed air...

Duly noted, comrade.

Mr Merde

17th April 2007, 10:36

..........
And secondly, the Founding Fathers fucked up with the Second Amendment. It may have made sense at the time it was written, but the twentieth century showed that the times are a-changin'. Giving a populace the 'right' to go forth permanently armed is insane. It behooves other nations to avoid similar mistakes when considering the issue.

They didnt write it, they lifted it almost verbatim from the British "Bill of Rights" from 1600 and something

alexthekidd

17th April 2007, 10:52

close escape for aussie girl

http://stuff.co.nz/4029218a12.html

alexthekidd

17th April 2007, 10:54

"All I can tell you is that he's a male," Flinchum said, giving no details of his age or nationality. He also did not say how well-armed the suspected gunman was.

However, other reports said the gunman was Asian American, and carried two nine-millimetre handguns.

10 Characters

jrandom

17th April 2007, 11:00

They didnt write it, they lifted it almost verbatim from the British "Bill of Rights" from 1600 and something

1689 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689).

Any 'right' is a moral convention held for the purpose of increasing the general good and needs to be seen in a broad social context.

The 'right' to be armed is not akin to, say, the 'right' to own property. All rights are not created equal.

For the record, I would support a careful move in NZ law towards allowing deserving citizens of good repute to arm themselves in self-defence. The key, I think, is realising that there are many who, for the greater good, should not be granted such a privilege.

alexthekidd

17th April 2007, 11:02

Cellphone footage of the shooting

<table width="400" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td width="5" rowspan="3" valign="top"><img src="http://static.spikedhumor.com/images/vcleft.gif" width="5" height="300"></td><td width="390" height="5" valign="top"><img src="http://static.spikedhumor.com/images/vctop.gif" width="390" height="5"></td><td width="5" rowspan="3" valign="top"><img src="http://static.spikedhumor.com/images/vcright.gif" width="5" height="300"></td></tr><tr><td height="273" valign="top"><embed src="http://www.spikedhumor.com/player/vcplayer.swf?file=http://www.spikedhumor.com/videocodes/99334/data.xml&auto_play=false" quality="high" scale="noscale" bgcolor="#000000" width="100%" height="100%" align="middle" allowScriptAccess="sameDomain" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" /></td></tr><tr><td height="22" valign="top"><a href="http://www.spikedhumor.com/articles/99334/Cellphone_Footage_Of_Virginia_Tech.html" target="_new"><img src="http://static.spikedhumor.com/images/vcbot.gif" width="390" height="22" border="0"></a></td></tr></table>

alexthekidd

17th April 2007, 11:07

allowing deserving citizens of good repute to arm themselves in self-defence. The key, I think, is realising that there are many who, for the greater good, should not be granted such a privilege.

How would these deserving citizens be seperated from those people with gang connections, or those on P?

Sure you might get it right 99% of the time but for every 1% wrong then theres another Virginia shooting or Columbine

And what if these deserving people have depressed or fucked up kids who just want to go shoot up the local high school?

Having firearms in the house also leaves them at risk to being stolen and falling into the hand of those less than reputable people you were trying to prevent getting the firearms in the first place.

tri boy

17th April 2007, 11:09

Muslim or Christian, Mullah or Pope, preacher or poet, who was it that wrote.
Give any one species too much rope, and they'll fuck it up.
Thoughts go out to the innocent.

SpankMe

17th April 2007, 11:12

Another one to add to the list (http://massmurder.zyns.com).

oldrider

17th April 2007, 11:26

Hah. This is both tragic and hilarious.

Imagine if this (http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/wb/xp-50658) law had been passed a year ago, instead of defeated.

Made that Virginia Tech spokesman feel 'safer', did it? I guess he's eating his words now. If that law had passed and, as I posited above, a legally armed faculty member had confronted the gunman, the tragedy could have been significantly mitigated.

Now that really was a "Tui" moment wasn't it!

Violence prevention policy: A ban on students or employees from carrying guns and prohibiting visitors from bringing them onto campus facilities!

Yes that will do it every time!

What a bloody joke, wake up PC brigade!

They took away any consequence for the perpetrator and gave him a free pass to kill at will, with no bag limit to slow him down until "he" was ready to quit.

Bloody do-gooder's, it's time they recognised the real world! :yes: John.

WRT

17th April 2007, 11:39

WRT

17th April 2007, 11:42

Bigger pic of the guy getting arrested:

ManDownUnder

17th April 2007, 11:46

it's not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people

So you're saying the perpetrator would have been able to kill 22 people randomly without the use of a firearm?

Lets examine this for a second.

3 components involved in the shooting.
The shooter
The gun
The ammo

Can the ammo do this by itself... errr - no
The gun perhaps.... errrr no
The person - why yes! Look at that. The person has the requisite freedom of thought and movement to orchestrate use of the gun, and ammunition in a manner that kills people.

With respect Hitch - short sighted, and off target comeback.

placidfemme

17th April 2007, 11:50

Swoop

17th April 2007, 11:54

Just a little curious - in the photo half way down the page here:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1260892,00.html

There is a man getting arrested by the police. How then, did he manage to "turn his gun on himself" with his hands cuffed?

Possibly a policy of treating anyone in the buildings as suspects until proven otherwise. Herd everyone out of the facilities but be aware that the murderer might try to hide in amongst the mass that is exiting.

Paul in NZ

17th April 2007, 11:57

yeah wait for the cover-up

Nah - that scumbag was speeding past the dorm..... Had to arrest him before someone got hurt...

Swoop

17th April 2007, 11:59

How would these deserving citizens be seperated from those people with gang connections, or those on P?
Perhaps by using sensible laws such as those we have in NZ that allow certain, appropriately checked and vetted, citizens the right to own pistols, rifles and shotguns of varying types.

Strangely enough... The shooting in the US, at a McD's some years back. One of the people in the restaurant at that time, decided to leave his handgun in the glovebox of his car. When the murderer entered and proceeded to shoot the place up, he did not have access to a tool that could have prevented some of the deaths.
A large amount of states are promoting the concealed carry permit. If a person meets certain criteria then they may carry, quite lawfully.

Paul in NZ

17th April 2007, 12:01

Lets examine this for a second.

3 components involved in the shooting.
The shooter
The gun
The ammo

Can the ammo do this by itself... errr - no
The gun perhaps.... errrr no
The person - why yes! Look at that. The person has the requisite freedom of thought and movement to orchestrate use of the gun, and ammunition in a manner that kills people.

With respect Hitch - short sighted, and off target comeback.

How so? Take away any of those factors and the crime does not happen. The idea that tipping MORE guns into a society will prevent or lessen the impact of these crimes is ever so slightly dubious (at best). Sure he could use a bomb or poisen or another weapon of math destruction (it was a technical university) but in most cases they don't... Handguns are a serious problem in the hands of the disturbed, the bitter or Americans

Sniper

17th April 2007, 12:08

How so? Take away any of those factors and the crime does not happen.

He could have instead beaten people to death with the gun. Or thrown ammo at them and hoped they died. :bleh:

Mr Merde

17th April 2007, 12:10

Check out a person by the name of Harold Shipton.

UK's biggest mass murderer (approx 300 killed) and his weapon of choice

A hypodermic

jrandom

17th April 2007, 12:11

How so? Take away any of those factors and the crime does not happen. The idea that tipping MORE guns into a society will prevent or lessen the impact of these crimes is ever so slightly dubious (at best).

As I pointed out above, though, the main problem is that the horse has already bolted. You can't get guns out of American society.

An object lesson, perhaps? By the 1950s, nobody could put the nucular genie back into its lamp. The MAD doctrine subsequently kept the world safe from nucular annihilation for 40 years.

In a similar fashion, good guys with weapons hanging out in malls and schools, and the knowledge that there are good guys with weapons hanging out in malls and schools, can keep the aspirations of violent criminals in check.

It's unfortunate, but when you can't take away the guns that the bad guys already have, it's pragmatic.

I agree, however, that this logic does not automatically extend to societies that aren't already stuck in the morass of violence that the USA has dug itself into.

jrandom

17th April 2007, 12:14

UK's biggest mass murderer (approx 300 killed)...

To pick a nit, in common usage, he wasn't a 'mass murderer'. He was a serial killer. 'Mass murder' typically refers to a single incident causing multiple fatalities, almost always resulting in the death or capture of the perpetrator.

Swoop

17th April 2007, 12:15

Or thrown ammo at them and hoped they died. :bleh:
Or forced them to swallow the projectile and wait for lead poisoning to occur.

ghost

17th April 2007, 12:18

So you're saying the perpetrator would have been able to kill 22 people randomly without the use of a firearm?

Unfortunatly yes, wasnt so long ago that a lot more people were killed by some people with box cutters. All it takes is a little sad and demented imagination and you can fly plane loads of people into tall buildings with just the simplest of tools.
Passing the blame onto firearms shifts the blame and cause of these problems away from the actual root cause, and in this case i suspect God would only know.
It is a tragic day for mankind but this isnt the first nor unfortunaly the last of mass killing around the world

Paul in NZ

17th April 2007, 12:26

Mind you - fast food chains and tobacco companies have been killing people en masse' for years so i suppose a mere 32 is a blip..

alexthekidd

17th April 2007, 12:30

Perhaps by using sensible laws such as those we have in NZ that allow certain, appropriately checked and vetted, citizens the right to own pistols, rifles and shotguns of varying types.

Strangely enough... The shooting in the US, at a McD's some years back. One of the people in the restaurant at that time, decided to leave his handgun in the glovebox of his car. When the murderer entered and proceeded to shoot the place up, he did not have access to a tool that could have prevented some of the deaths.
A large amount of states are promoting the concealed carry permit. If a person meets certain criteria then they may carry, quite lawfully.

But by arming normal people and allowing them to conceal their weapons you are giving them a vigilante like status, power will go to someones head and that will cost more lives.

Guns are far to readily available in the US. I lived there for 3 years and people were amazed that we didn't have a gun. What amazed me most about the whole thing was that they sell guns at Wal-Mart and K-Mart.

Sniper

17th April 2007, 12:35

Guns are far to readily available in the US. I lived there for 3 years and people were amazed that we didn't have a gun. What amazed me most about the whole thing was that they sell guns at Wal-Mart and K-Mart.

Its a good family orientated store. Sure they could work a bit more on people and responsibilities, but I know I was brought up around firearms and I know that all you need is proper education

jrandom

17th April 2007, 12:35

... by arming normal people and allowing them to conceal their weapons you are giving them a vigilante like status, power will go to someones head and that will cost more lives.

Oh, do fuck off with that bullshit.

If I gave you a gun to walk around with, would you ever let that 'go to your head'?

If so, you're enough of a danger to society that you certainly shouldn't be given a driver's licence. Or, for that matter, allowed to breed and raise kids.

Normal, healthy individuals do not turn into power-crazed killers just because they have access to a weapon.

Guns are far to readily available in the US.

This is arguably true.

ManDownUnder

17th April 2007, 12:36

How so? Take away any of those factors and the crime does not happen.

You either miss, or sidestepped my point. It is possible for people to orchestrate the death of others through the use of a firearms (or knife, or joint of frozen meat for that matter). The weapon cannot be held responsible for the outcome.

Only the person can, as they are the only component in the scenario with freewill and autonomy.

The idea that tipping MORE guns into a society will prevent or lessen the impact of these crimes is ever so slightly dubious (at best).

Been to Switzerland? Seen the crime rate stats there? Ever come across the wee issue of every house having a gun in it?

To grossly oversimplify it - it's a cultural thing.

Sure he could use a bomb or poisen or another weapon of math destruction (it was a technical university) but in most cases they don't... Handguns are a serious problem in the hands of the disturbed, the bitter or Americans

No, in NZ the weapon of choice is a car, or arguably the lack of budget for curing prostate cancer or... but that's a whole other argument.

As previously mentioned, it's a cultural thing. Where there is discipline there is control. How many murderous shooting sprees happen in the Army? I really don't know but I'm willing to bet per gun owning head the civilian world has a higher murder/crime rate.

You're right. Pouring more guns in does not address the problem. They are simply going to accentuate the balance of power. Where there is general disorder, there's now going to be armed disorder.

Where there is order and control - there will now be armed order and control.

It IS a people thing.

Paul in NZ

17th April 2007, 12:40

Oh, do fuck off with that bullshit.

If I gave you a gun to walk around with, would you ever let that 'go to your head'?

If so, you're enough of a danger to society that you certainly shouldn't be given a driver's licence. Or, for that matter, allowed to breed and raise kids.

Normal, healthy individuals do not turn into power-crazed killers just because they have access to a weapon.

This is arguably true.

Thats a bit harsh....

Sure - but define 'normal' and then look at the numbers of people that are affected by mental health problems at some stage in their life and ask yourself what might happen if they just had a handgun handy there and then at the one moment they lost the plot... Look at the way normal healthy individuals act with alcohol and on the road?

jrandom

17th April 2007, 12:40

I know I was brought up around firearms and I know that all you need is proper education

Exactly.

It's easier to kill someone with a car than with a gun. Seriously.

What about incidents in this country within the past few years involving cars being used as weapons? Teenagers driving into groups of people that offended them?

I don't hear any consequent ranting about how we should ban cars because people turn into homicidal maniacs as soon as they get behind the wheel (although, come to think of it...)

Weapons in the hands of responsible, moral adults add to the moral fibre of a society. If only the sheeple with their irrational weapon-phobia could come to realise that, the criminals lurking in the outer fringes could be deprived of prey.

ManDownUnder

17th April 2007, 12:40

I know I was brought up around firearms and I know that all you need is proper education

ne'er a truer word spoken. And (dare I say it) if/when I abused the priveledge, shot a native bird, did something dangerous... I'd literally get my arse kicked.

And rightly so.

Sue Bradford - stick THAT up yer jumper.

ghost

17th April 2007, 12:41

Some of you are loosing the point. Guess which side of the fence I sit on by the following if you can.

Blaming a death or injury by firearm because some one miss-used it on the firearm, is akin to blaming the red 1998 Honda MPV that pull out in front of you from the side street with out looking.

Firearms and cars are inanamate objects, they dont operate by themselfs. Use them or dont use them. Like them or not. Dont blame these acts on them. Owning them doesnt turn you into a mass murderer, any more than owning that red 1998 Honda MPV turn you into a shithouse driver, you are what you are. Some people should be allowed them and some people shouldnt.

Sweden has a higher Gun to Populace percentage than America. But they dont have the crime. IE Its not the Guns its the society.

jrandom

17th April 2007, 12:42

weaponry being available, in moderation...

Actually, come to think of it, fuck moderation. I want an M2.

Mr Merde

17th April 2007, 12:43

......

It IS a people thing.....

Exactly right and until we reverse the current trend, fostered by the PC brigade, that it is always the fault of someone else or something else, and take responsibility for our own actions and decisions this dicsussion will go on and on.

Paul in NZ

17th April 2007, 12:49

You either miss, or sidestepped my point. It is possible for people to orchestrate the death of others through the use of a firearms (or knife, or joint of frozen meat for that matter). The weapon cannot be held responsible for the outcome.

Only the person can, as they are the only component in the scenario with freewill and autonomy.

Been to Switzerland? Seen the crime rate stats there? Ever come across the wee issue of every house having a gun in it?

To grossly oversimplify it - it's a cultural thing.

No, in NZ the weapon of choice is a car, or arguably the lack of budget for curing prostate cancer or... but that's a whole other argument.

As previously mentioned, it's a cultural thing. Where there is discipline there is control. How many murderous shooting sprees happen in the Army? I really don't know but I'm willing to bet per gun owning head the civilian world has a higher murder/crime rate.

You're right. Pouring more guns in does not address the problem. They are simply going to accentuate the balance of power. Where there is general disorder, there's now going to be armed disorder.

Where there is order and control - there will now be armed order and control.

It IS a people thing.

You make some good points that are hard to disagree with.

I agree - it's definately a people or cultural thing but god forbid we ever become like the swiss (you think traffic infringments are heavily policed here??).....

It's the semi auto handgun within easy reach of someone having one of those moments that scares me... Plus the thought of Vicki wandering about with a pearl handled .45 in her handbag scares the crap out of me. I can see her at the checkout looking for her eftpos card and tipping the contents of the bag out to look for it (bag usually includes a half eaten sandwich, 1000 eftpos receipts, foreign coins, 1/2 tonne of assorted cosmetics containers (mostly empty), brushes, scarves, a hair dryer, 14 sets of house keys for houses we don't or no longer live in, a DVD she must return and 2 library books as well (this is the minimum)...

The 'thunk' as the gun and a case of ammo hits the checkout would be a classic... 'Here hold this please'...

Plus image the women like Paris Hilton with dogs that live in handbags? Little Fidos paw gets caught in the trigger and kablooie.... actually thats not a bad idea...

ghost

17th April 2007, 12:54

It's the semi auto handgun within easy reach of someone having one of those moments that scares me... Plus the thought of Vicki wandering about with a pearl handled .45 in her handbag scares the crap out of me. I can see her at the checkout looking for her eftpos card and tipping the contents of the bag out to look for it (bag usually includes a half eaten sandwich, 1000 eftpos receipts, foreign coins, 1/2 tonne of assorted cosmetics containers (mostly empty), brushes, scarves, a hair dryer, 14 sets of house keys for houses we don't or no longer live in, a DVD she must return and 2 library books as well (this is the minimum)...

The 'thunk' as the gun and a case of ammo hits the checkout would be a classic... 'Here hold this please'...

Plus image the women like Paris Hilton with dogs that live in handbags? Little Fidos paw gets caught in the trigger and kablooie.... actually thats not a bad idea...

Properly approved people with the qualifications to hold the appropriate licence. Very simple, your Vickie NOT would be allowed one. Me on the other hand can have one, or two.............and if I one day did have one of those moments, trust me there better things to use than handguns......

ManDownUnder

17th April 2007, 12:59

I agree - it's definately a people or cultural thing but god forbid we ever become like the swiss (you think traffic infringments are heavily policed here??).....

Agreed - they are heavily Policed.

It's the semi auto handgun within easy reach of someone having one of those moments that scares me... Plus the thought of Vicki wandering about with a pearl handled .45 in her handbag scares the crap out of me.

LOL I'll respectfully address the salient points, and leave my Vicki abuse for a forum she can respond in.

That is EXACTLY the reason people need to go shooting. People do not know what a firearm can do until they have used one. That stunning percussion of a 12 Gauge going off in your hands leaves little to the imagination.

Poeple need to be taken hunting, shooting. They need to be there when something dies so they experience first hand the grisley reality of it. It's not a glorious thing, and anyone that seriously thinks it is well... I refer to Fish's commentary on those going power crazy and not being suitable for a car licence.

I know for me personally there are two types of people... those I am comfortable shooting with - and those I am not. There's not a lot of grey area in there. "Opps - fuck sorry... that was a bit close" tends to put people in the latter camp.

People that have been there, that understand the real implications of pulling the trigger, are fine with me. Military types tend to know this stuff. Farming/rural types tend to know this stuff.

On the other hand there are the kids that grew up playing video games, or that see gangster shootouts as something cool.... Bang... dead... ok game over try again.

No, bang, dead... end of story. People need to know and respect that

Motu

17th April 2007, 13:11

Its not the Guns its the society.

Zigactly - fucked if I want to be in a Mall with a gunman blazing away....and then have some fucking nerd IT worker trying to save me with a Glock he pulls out of his laptop case! The Yanks kill more people with ''friendly fire'' than the targets they aim at....a citizen who thinks he's going to ''protect himself'' is someone I don't want to be anywhere near.They are gun crazy,just lock the borders and leave them alone.And as for the oh so experianced gun men on this site - don't come anywherefuckingnear me!

Sniper

17th April 2007, 13:12

And as for the oh so experianced gun men on this site - don't come anywherefuckingnear me!

We aint that bad, hell, MDU and Smokin didnt shoot me. Not even a close call

Swoop

17th April 2007, 13:14

Words.
Damn well said MDU!
Bling on its way.

Dilligaf

17th April 2007, 13:25

So I am the only one who thought it ironic that the person who posted this was ta da SNIPER.... hmmm :/

Hitcher

17th April 2007, 13:30

With respect Hitch - short sighted, and off target comeback.

No need to bother with the "with respect" bit. I wasn't disputing the fact that it's people who kill people. My point (badly made I concede) is that guns make this task a shit load easier. But I don't believe that the means of execution should be discounted by glib cliche or other form of sloganeering. This is not a simplistic matter.

I don't think that people should be able/allowed to wander around (I was going to say aimlessly) armed to the fucking teeth with devices whose sole purpose is to kill. I find this offensive.

Motu

17th April 2007, 13:31

We aint that bad, hell, MDU and Smokin didnt shoot me. Not even a close call

I mean in a ''friendly fire'' kind of way - don't try and save me man,I'm pretty good at looking after myself.You can pull your gun out when I'm a long way away.You may think you are pretty good at shooting,but I don't trust you one fucking bit....let's be clear on that,I think you are a fucking nutcase with a gun,it's the society remember,and as a member of our society I want you disarmed and out of my life.

Sniper

17th April 2007, 13:33

I mean in a ''friendly fire'' kind of way - don't try and save me man,I'm pretty good at looking after myself.You can pull your gun out when I'm a long way away.You may think you are pretty good at shooting,but I don't trust you one fucking bit....let's be clear on that,I think you are a fucking nutcase with a gun,it's the society remember,and as a member of our society I want you disarmed and out of my life.

In all honesty, you can't argue with logic like that.

ManDownUnder

17th April 2007, 13:45

No need to bother with the "with respect" bit. I wasn't disputing the fact that it's people who kill people. My point (badly made I concede) is that guns make this task a shit load easier. But I don't believe that the means of execution should be discounted by glib cliche or other form of sloganeering. This is not a simplistic matter.

No - I think it is a simple matter. With discipline comes priviledge.

I don't think that people should be able/allowed to wander around (I was going to say aimlessly) armed to the fucking teeth with devices whose sole purpose is to kill. I find this offensive.

Agreed with what I believe you are saying but it needs to be further qualified.

If I am heading out to kill I need the tools. Rabbits don't volunteer themselves for mass execution, or do the job themselves. The humane thing is to have something extremely lethal and use it correctly.

That being said - people are not my targets, and only would be in the most extreme of circumstances. I was raised with a simple and very strictly enforced rule "Ooly point the gun at things you're willing to kill". I light of the comment I'm responding to, I'd hasten to add - if you have no intention to kill - you have no need to carry a gun.

Paul in NZ

17th April 2007, 13:50

LOL I'll respectfully address the salient points, and leave my Vicki abuse for a forum she can respond in.

Oh don't worry - shes on her way to sort you out. If you could just hold her Uzi while she fills the magazine though - one of her mates was low on ammo and she lent her some until payday but Barbara at the Mall got a deal on some bayonnets that she swapped for some other stuff so since Liz already owed Vicki a box of ammo she lent her a case of grenades which her husband said was almost the same thing but she didn't want them because they hardly use any grenades now the kids have left home and i think the expiry date is coming up. Personally I think she just wants to get rid of the grenades 'cos they make her arse look big....

That is EXACTLY the reason people need to go shooting. People do not know what a firearm can do until they have used one. That stunning percussion of a 12 Gauge going off in your hands leaves little to the imagination.

Poeple need to be taken hunting, shooting. They need to be there when something dies so they experience first hand the grisley reality of it. It's not a glorious thing, and anyone that seriously thinks it is well... I refer to Fish's commentary on those going power crazy and not being suitable for a car licence.

I grew up hunting - I'm comfortable and competent with guns and rifles but gave up and sold em once I realised i was not going hunting for a looonnnggg time to come... Vicki and I know what happens at the business end...

I know for me personally there are two types of people... those I am comfortable shooting with - and those I am not. There's not a lot of grey area in there. "Opps - fuck sorry... that was a bit close" tends to put people in the latter camp.

Actually there are a LOT of people I'm NOT comfortable with full stop. However at the very very top of the list are people with ready access to loaded and concealed firearms...

If people wanna play with that stuff there are always lots of wars going on and there are lots of people recruiting...

Motu

17th April 2007, 13:53

- if you have no intention to kill - you have no need to carry a gun.

And that is why the American society is so fucked....they are all carrying guns to kill people,no other reason.Self defense,not from a rabbit,but from humans.They are not protecting themselves from a corrupt government,but from their own citizens,they have turned their humans rights upon themselves.

Paul in NZ

17th April 2007, 13:56

And that is why the American society is so fucked....they are all carrying guns to kill people,no other reason.Self defense,not from a rabbit,but from humans.They are not protecting themselves from a corrupt government,but from their own citizens,they have turned their humans rights upon themselves.

That makes them inhuman rights...

jrandom

17th April 2007, 14:01

they are all carrying guns to kill people,no other reason.Self defense,not from a rabbit,but from humans.

Let's say, hypothetically, that I, a Bad Man, turn up at your house intent on raping the female family members, killing everybody and then nicking off with the DVD player. Let's say that I brought a gun.

Would you rather:

(a) meet me in the hallway with a gun of your own; or

(b) er... die?

Hitcher

17th April 2007, 14:02

No - I think it is a simple matter. With discipline comes priviledge.

Doesn't "priviledge" in this context need to be earned?

And the discipline at Virginia State University was where?

Agreed with what I believe you are saying but it needs to be further qualified.

If I am heading out to kill I need the tools. Rabbits don't volunteer themselves for mass execution, or do the job themselves. The humane thing is to have something extremely lethal and use it correctly.

That being said - people are not my targets, and only would be in the most extreme of circumstances. I was raised with a simple and very strictly enforced rule "Ooly point the gun at things you're willing to kill". I light of the comment I'm responding to, I'd hasten to add - if you have no intention to kill - you have no need to carry a gun.
I wasn't talking about bunny-botherers and their "rights" to bear arms. And you appear to have answered yourself anyway.

ghost

17th April 2007, 14:13

I don't think that people should be able/allowed to wander around (I was going to say aimlessly) armed to the fucking teeth with devices whose sole purpose is to kill. I find this offensive.

I find ignorance and intollerance offensive. I find peoples duality on devices designed to kill that arnt used to harm "humans", and devices that are designed to help but end up killing to be offensive. Thank fuck we live in a (so far) free society what we can do what we like within reason if it doesnt harm others or ourselves. If you want to be offended, go protest against alcohol, or suger, or pollution, fat........... the things that silently kill thousands of New Zealanders a year and leave the rest of us to our chosen hobbies, fishing, hunting, riding, shooting in peace.

ghost

17th April 2007, 14:20

Sniper

17th April 2007, 14:23

SPman

17th April 2007, 14:23

Actually, come to think of it, fuck moderation. I want an M2.
50 cal.?......mmmmmm yes, that would be fun.

Trouble with disarming the populace, is that whilst the general citizenry are disarmed, those who wouldnt normally use weapons, apart from sorting out certain neighbours occasionally, those who want arms, for use in nefarious circumstances, can quite easily obtain them! Then we're all at a disadvantage!

And then you've got the petty beauracrats dictating who can and can't have weapons......these killer losers have got it wrong - when your girlfriend cheats on you - go out and shoot a few fucking politicians and church leaders - just leave everybody else alone.......

Mr Merde

17th April 2007, 14:27

No point trying to argue with these guys Fish. They dont think like you or me. They dont want (a) because guns are bad, and they dont want (b) because this will never happen to them, bad people will be sorted out by someone else, they want (c) I will use the iron bar by the front door and give them a good kicking.

Like I said, given a choice they dont think like you.

Boy scout moto "be prepared"

Its got a lot to do with the rise of the politically correct brigade and the "nanny state".

We are not expected to look after ourselves nowadays as it may infringe upon someone elses right to self expression through the medium of violence.

The "nanny state" has decided that we arent to be trusted with looking out for ourselves and that it can do so for us via the medium of more police forces and legislation.

Together both these schools of thought have taken away a basic human right.

That of self preservation.

SPman

17th April 2007, 14:43

Too much death ,horror and destruction around these days, thanks, in part, to the USA.
This is much better news
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10434654

ManDownUnder

17th April 2007, 14:44

Doesn't "priviledge" in this context need to be earned?
Yes. Through the acquisition and demonstration of dissiplin

And the discipline at Virginia State University was where?
Missing.

I wasn't talking about bunny-botherers and their "rights" to bear arms.
You forgot to mention the right to form militias which IMHO is equally out of place now we have a paid Police force.

And you appear to have answered yourself anyway.
I do that more than I care to admit to myself

SPman

17th April 2007, 15:02

You forgot to mention the right to form militias which IMHO is equally out of place now we have a paid Police force.
Some would argue it's even more imperative, because of that.

Scouse

17th April 2007, 15:48

but once again, it's not guns that kill people, it's people that kill people Fuck off and get with the program anyone would find it imposible to kill 32 people with there bare hands in the same time it takes to loose off 32 rounds.

Finn

17th April 2007, 15:50

Fuck off and get with the program anyone would find it imposible to kill 32 people with there bare hands in the same time it takes to loose off 32 rounds.

Chuck Norris could.

Scouse

17th April 2007, 16:09

Thats a bit harsh....

Sure - but define 'normal' and then look at the numbers of people that are affected by mental health problems at some stage in their life and ask yourself what might happen if they just had a handgun handy there and then at the one moment they lost the plot... Look at the way normal healthy individuals act with alcohol and on the road?Exactly until you learnd that John Kirwin was a fruit loop you would have thought that he was upstanding enough to be a good guy and arm him

Scouse

17th April 2007, 16:11

Chuck Norris could.Ooops I forgot to say Normal person

Swoop

17th April 2007, 16:15

Exactly until you learnd that John Kirwin was a fruit loop you would have thought that he was upstanding enough to be a good guy and arm him
NOT in NZ though.
Had his partner been questioned, in private, without JK being present?
Had two other persons, who had been put forward as nominees to his mental state, been questioned?

ManDownUnder

17th April 2007, 16:20

Fuck off and get with the program anyone would find it imposible to kill 32 people with there bare hands in the same time it takes to loose off 32 rounds.

So you're saying it's hand that kill people?

We're all fucked then

jrandom

17th April 2007, 16:22

NOT in NZ though.
Had his partner been questioned, in private, without JK being present?
Had two other persons, who had been put forward as nominees to his mental state, been questioned?

Swoop speaks troof.

zrxer, are you aware that it is not possible to get a firearms licence in NZ without the Police vetting your mental health record? [Edit: And conducting private interviews with your partner and two other personal referees.]

I know of one chap who'd love to go shooting, but can't get a F/L due to his medical history.

Also, if you do get a firearms licence and are then subsequently diagnosed with some sort of psychological problem, the fuzz can and will come and take away your licence and weapons.

Daffyd

17th April 2007, 16:22

Mind you - fast food chains and tobacco companies have been killing people en masse' for years so i suppose a mere 32 is a blip..

Not to mention the drug companies in cahoots with the FDA.

alexthekidd

17th April 2007, 16:23

Oh, do fuck off with that bullshit.

If I gave you a gun to walk around with, would you ever let that 'go to your head'?

If so, you're enough of a danger to society that you certainly shouldn't be given a driver's licence. Or, for that matter, allowed to breed and raise kids.

Normal, healthy individuals do not turn into power-crazed killers just because they have access to a weapon.

No i am not saying that people will automatically turn into power-crazed killers just because they have access to a weapon, but SOME people will, and it only takes one person to have another virginia shooting on our hands

Its a good family orientated store. Sure they could work a bit more on people and responsibilities, but I know I was brought up around firearms and I know that all you need is proper education

Proper education is indeed a key aspect of it, you were brought up around firearms, but theres a bit of a difference between the guns at a farm and carrying around a 9mm hand gun in your pocket all day

riffer

17th April 2007, 16:23

I'm must admit to feeling more than a little ambivalent about this whole thing.

For years now the United States of America has been exporting their foreign policy of murder to the world. In television, movies and in reality with their actions on foreign soils.

How many people died in Iraq today? Or Afghanistan? Or maybe anywhere in Africa because of corrupt globalisation policies? A damn sight more than 32 people...

Yet we wring our hands and worry about 32 people killed by some unhinged idiot, when every day hundreds more die because of official organised policies.

And TV has had it on all day. Its all so fucking hypocritical it makes me sick.

I'm sorry America. You reap what you sow.

RIP to the victims worldwide today. :mellow:

ManDownUnder

17th April 2007, 16:24

Exactly until you learnd that John Kirwin was a fruit loop you would have thought that he was upstanding enough to be a good guy and arm him

Considering the amount of guts he has to stand and help others by doing what he did... he'd be further up the queue than those that get off on putting others down...

Swoop

17th April 2007, 16:25

anyone would find it imposible to kill 32 people with there bare hands in the same time it takes to loose off 32 rounds.
Why rush? Take your time about it.
Jack the Ripper did.
Jeffrey Dahmer[sp?] did.

jrandom

17th April 2007, 16:27

... bit of a difference between the guns at a farm and carrying around a 9mm hand gun in your pocket all day

ROFL.

Where do you think Sniper grew up?

alexthekidd

17th April 2007, 16:28

ROFL.

Where do you think Sniper grew up?

Now i'm wondering if i want to know

terbang

17th April 2007, 16:28

People with handguns shoot people with handguns who get shot by cops with handguns and then they make it look really good in the moovies and the term blowing em away arrived and so did the shotguns and machine guns and mythbusters proved em wrong but then most stupid yanks were off immortalising chuck norris or dirty harry believing that you can get shot and still get the bad guys and then survive to the moovie credits because its their goddam fucking right to bear arms. Whew.

A stupid society.

RIP those taken down in Virginia and condolences to their families. They are victims of their countymen's folly with guns.

ManDownUnder

17th April 2007, 16:28

Proper education is indeed a key aspect of it, you were brought up around firearms, but theres a bit of a difference between the guns at a farm and carrying around a 9mm hand gun in your pocket all day

There's also a lot of similarities. Someone with that experience and understanding is a lot more likely to make rational decisions than someone living their childhood years through an Xbox.

That being said. I maintain there needs to be a bloody good reason to be carrying a gun. If you have no intention to kill - you have no need to carry a firearm.

Swoop

17th April 2007, 16:29

No i am not saying that people will automatically turn into power-crazed killers just because they have access to a weapon, but SOME people will, and it only takes one person to have another virginia shooting on our hands
Some people have access to a weapon... THEY HAVE KEYS TO A CAR.

ManDownUnder

17th April 2007, 16:36

Some people have access to a weapon... THEY HAVE KEYS TO A CAR.

or - I hasten to add... a motorcycle.

Bloody deadly things motorcycles. They get used irresponsibly left and right - they should be banned altogether. It's only a few that like them, and they're clearly un-needed.

They're dangerous, and only used by thrill seeking junkies who should be held down till they see reason.

The only real use for them is to get away from holdups by powering away through traffic. They're gorssly overpowered which is clearly for the sole benefit of people with ill intentions yet they're sold under the guise of transport - or sport.

It's a crock. Outlaw the lot of them. Sure they have alternate uses but we all know they're actually built for a select set of nefarious purposes.

They're kinda like guns in that respect...

Scouse

17th April 2007, 16:39

So you're saying it's hand that kill people?

We're all fucked thenNo do you have a reading difficulty?

alexthekidd

17th April 2007, 16:43

ManDownUnder

17th April 2007, 16:44

Fuck off and get with the program anyone would find it imposible to kill 32 people with there bare hands in the same time it takes to loose off 32 rounds.

No do you have a reading difficulty?
No - why?

Your first statement said it would be quicker to kill people with a gun than with their bare hands... ergo it is possible to kill people with their hands. And I agree with that - we both know that's true.

Following your flawless logic that means we clamp down on anyone carrying hands... or at least outlaw the use of them

So you're saying you would just shoot this person who has entered your house, not knowing if it's your kid getting up in the night to get a glass of water?

*Yawn*

Step one... identify your target

(anyone else care to spell out the reamining 6?) I can't be arsed.

Sniper

17th April 2007, 16:47

So you're saying you would just shoot this person who has entered your house, not knowing if it's your kid getting up in the night to get a glass of water?

Why the fuck is the kid allowed out of bed between 2100 and 0600? He is disobeying a direct rule, he should be shot

imdying

17th April 2007, 16:47

Step one... identify your targetWell duh!!?! How else are you going to know where to shoot to make a kill shot, if you don't even know what you're shooting at!

For example, not much shooting at adult chest height if it were Finn that broke in your house!

alexthekidd

17th April 2007, 16:49

Does fish really sound like the kind of person to worry about who and what he is shooting, sounds more like whip out my AK47, chuck her on full auto and let the fuck rip

Sniper

17th April 2007, 16:50

Well duh!!?! How else are you going to know where to shoot to make a kill shot, if you don't even know what you're shooting at!

For example, not much shooting at adult chest height if it were Finn that broke in your house!

Are we talking in NZ or America here? I mean here you can only fire as fast as you can pull the trigger. In America you could spray down the hallway.

alexthekidd

17th April 2007, 16:50

Why the fuck is the kid allowed out of bed between 2100 and 0600? He is disobeying a direct rule, he should be shot

Well duh!!?! How else are you going to know where to shoot to make a kill shot, if you don't even know what you're shooting at!

For example, not much shooting at adult chest height if it were Finn that broke in your house!

With these sorts of comments the only appropriate thing to do is laugh really :lol:

imdying

17th April 2007, 16:51

With these sorts of comments the only appropriate thing to do is laugh really :lol:That was the idea :yes:

ManDownUnder

17th April 2007, 16:51

Does fish really sound like the kind of person to worry about who and what he is shooting,

As much as this pains me to say.... yes.

Sniper

17th April 2007, 16:51

Does fish really sound like the kind of person to worry about who and what he is shooting, sounds more like whip out my AK47, chuck her on full auto and let the fuck rip

I would check your tongue matey. Fish is one of those who I would trust to shoot your big mouth off at 500 yards

jrandom

17th April 2007, 16:52

So you're saying you would just shoot this person who has entered your house, not knowing if it's your kid getting up in the night to get a glass of water?

ROFL. Good heavens. Are you starting off on some sort of Grand Tour of Logical Fallacies here, or what?

I said nothing of the sort. Failing to positively identify the target before pulling the trigger on a firearm is akin to driving with your eyes closed. Stop being silly.

Paul in NZ

17th April 2007, 16:52

Far out - just had a thought re this....

Imagine a class full of 'responsible' geeks with gun licenses... Madman busts in and pops a few rounds into the class killing a few due to the shock and suddenly the rest of the class's fantasy comes true and they simulateously pull out their 9mm semi autos and let rip.... Fark - wonder how many would survive?

Street Gerbil

17th April 2007, 16:54

Any country that refuses to sort its gun "ownership" issues can expect events like this to occur regularly. And they do.
Actually it is a perfect illustration as to why forbidding gun ownership leads to tragedy. VTech campus was declared a "gun-free zone" and as a result only the bad guy was armed.
Proper registration laws (requiring extensive training) can take care of excessive trigger-happiness.

ManDownUnder

17th April 2007, 16:54

Sniper

17th April 2007, 16:54

jrandom

17th April 2007, 16:55

Fish is one of those who I would trust to shoot your tiny dick off at 500 yards

Awww, shucks, dude.

Actually, I'm offended. At 500 yards, I'd aim for CM...

The Pastor

17th April 2007, 16:56

So you're saying the perpetrator would have been able to kill 22 people randomly without the use of a firearm?

It could be done with a knife or a bat, just takes more plannning.

Now if everyone had a gun, this wouldnt be a problem would it...............

Sniper

17th April 2007, 16:56

Awww, shucks, dude.

Actually, I'm offended. At 500 yards, I'd aim for CM...

Shit, sorry. I'll go alter it to say 1000 yards, sound better?

Which reminds me, did my first smallbore in 3 years last night, walked away with a very respectable 98.4 :D

Finn

17th April 2007, 16:58

There are over 11 million privately owned firearms in Canada and it's no real problem unless you're a moose.

Sniper

17th April 2007, 16:58

There are over 11 million privately owned firearms in Canada and it's no real problem unless you're a moose.

Everyone knows Canada isn't a real country though :dodge:

ManDownUnder

17th April 2007, 16:59

It could be done with a knife or a bat, just takes more plannning.

Now if everyone had a gun, this wouldnt be a problem would it...............

Actually it could - if no-one knows what the hell they're doing - or they're all trigger happy.

I'm NOT advocating global rights to own a gun - my whole focus is on the reponsible use of guns. There's a HUGE difference

alexthekidd

17th April 2007, 17:02

Actually it could - if no-one knows what the hell they're doing - or they're all trigger happy.

I'm NOT advocating global rights to own a gun - my whole focus is on the reponsible use of guns. There's a HUGE difference

So where in responsible is a Semi Auto 9MM Pistol?

jrandom

17th April 2007, 17:02

Imagine a class full of 'responsible' geeks with gun licenses...

Nuh-uh.

Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AA_dgRdDhk&mode=related&search=) a good example of what really happens when a responsible armed citizen is faced with such a situation.

Background details of that situation (as discussed in the glocktalk.com LEO forum at the time): robber walked in, presented a pistol, fired a shot into the ceiling, demanded money. Clerk drew and fired three shots from his Glock, all hitting robber in torso. Robber ran and collapsed just outside door. He survived and was sentenced to 8 years jail, if I recall correctly.

Clerk got a pat on the back from the local PD.

Now that's what should have happened at Virginia Tech.

Sniper

17th April 2007, 17:04

So where in responsible is a Semi Auto 9MM Pistol?

People who use them for target shooting? Folk in law enforcement.

Mum used to carry a 9mm on her everyday, I never saw her get pissed off at the little old lady at the front of the que and gun down the store. An believe me, mum could get feirce when she wanted to.

jrandom

17th April 2007, 17:05

So where in responsible is a Semi Auto 9MM Pistol?

See my previous post...

Sniper

17th April 2007, 17:05

Nuh-uh.

Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AA_dgRdDhk&mode=related&search=) a good example of what really happens when a responsible armed citizen is faced with such a situation.

Background details of that situation (as discussed in the glocktalk.com LEO forum at the time): robber walked in, presented a pistol, fired a shot into the ceiling, demanded money. Clerk drew and fired three shots from his Glock, all hitting robber in torso. Robber ran and collapsed just outside door. He survived and was sentenced to 8 years jail, if I recall correctly.

Clerk got a pat on the back from the local PD.

Now that's what should have happened at Virginia Tech.

You see, in NZ the animal rights activists, pacifists and hippies would all ask why he fired 3 shots instead of 1 warning shot. :p

SPman

17th April 2007, 17:06

In America you could spray down the hallway.
You mean - like dogs and cats do?????

ManDownUnder

17th April 2007, 17:08

So where in responsible is a Semi Auto 9MM Pistol?

There's the problem. You want the GUN to be responsible. Bad news dude - it's a person thing.

To answer what you attempted to ask
1) I know it's a rhetorical question
2) I know you don't think there's actually an answer
3) I some how suspect you're actually 12
4) It's the holidays and you're bored - I know
5) The answer would be "in the hands of a qualified/responsible gun owner"

Perhaps the Pistol club
Perhaps plinking around a farm
Perhaps anywhere that's safe to use it...

It seems there are a number of suitable answers... what a surprise.

Sniper

17th April 2007, 17:10

3) I some how suspect you're actually 12

He is 15 according to profile

ManDownUnder

17th April 2007, 17:10

He is 15 according to profile

IQ or shoe size?

jrandom

17th April 2007, 17:11

You see, in NZ the animal rights activists, pacifists and hippies would all ask why he fired 3 shots instead of 1 warning shot. :p

Hell, he had a G17. I was asking why he didn't fire 17 shots!

Actually, I thought he handled that situation pretty much perfectly. Quick draw, good stance, rapid fire bang on target's center of mass until the bad guy got through the door and collapsed, at which point he went forward to confirm that the threat was neutralised. Textbook stuff.

Marmoot

17th April 2007, 17:18

...This time 32 dead and many wounded....

Not meaning any disrespect, but I am wondering why this one did not receive the same reaction.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3041970

alexthekidd

17th April 2007, 17:18

so do you believe that all people that fit in this example colarado statue for carrying a concealed weapon should be allowed to?

(1) Beginning May 17, 2003, except as otherwise provided in this section, a sheriff shall issue a permit to carry a concealed handgun to an applicant who:

(a) Is a legal resident of the state of Colorado. ...

(b) Is twenty-one years of age or older;

(c) Is not ineligible to possess a firearm pursuant to section 18-12-108 or federal law; ...

scumdog

17th April 2007, 17:18

Fuck off and get with the program anyone would find it imposible to kill 32 people with there bare hands in the same time it takes to loose off 32 rounds.

Yeah, an arsonists work ain't THAT easy!

BTW, anybody being following the pistol shootings in London over the last year or so?
Seems the UK has some of the most draconian gun laws - pistols especially yet 15 year old wannabe 'gangstas' are shooting their rivals dead.

It's a society thing (Canada has pretty close to the same ratio of guns to people as the US - but look at their mass shooting record) and I'm concerned that maybe London is sliding into the same mentality as some of the US.

alexthekidd

17th April 2007, 17:19

Not meaning any disrespect, but I am wondering why this one did not receive the same reaction.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3041970

That puts things in perspective a little doesn't it

alexthekidd

17th April 2007, 17:21

There's the problem. You want the GUN to be responsible. Bad news dude - it's a person thing.

To answer what you attempted to ask
1) I know it's a rhetorical question
2) I know you don't think there's actually an answer
3) I some how suspect you're actually 12
4) It's the holidays and you're bored - I know
5) The answer would be "in the hands of a qualified/responsible gun owner"

Perhaps the Pistol club
Perhaps plinking around a farm
Perhaps anywhere that's safe to use it...

It seems there are a number of suitable answers... what a surprise.

So somewhere safe to use it is in ones pocket as they're going to get the milk?

scumdog

17th April 2007, 17:23

So where in responsible is a Semi Auto 9MM Pistol?

It's right up there with owning a Hyabusa.. or a Boss Hog.. or a GTR Skyline..or a blown big-block T-bucket...or???

ManDownUnder

17th April 2007, 17:27

So somewhere safe to use it is in ones pocket as they're going to get the milk?

That's not a gun in your pocket - it's your knob. Leave it alone.

Get back to me when you have anything decent to ask.

Sniper

17th April 2007, 17:31

Not meaning any disrespect, but I am wondering why this one did not receive the same reaction.

http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=3041970

None taken. I saw that and was ready to comment if a thread had been put up. But unfortunatly there is too much speculation involved in that as there is in this school shooting.

Doesn't make that any less important

mstriumph

17th April 2007, 17:37

So you're saying the perpetrator would have been able to kill 22 people randomly without the use of a firearm?

yep
car bomb
poison in the drinking water
school canteen food [with or without the poison in the case of the school i went to ..:sick: ...]
unprotected sex with a communicatable nasty
compulsary re-runs of "days of our lives" .......

.......... possibilities are endless really :innocent:

Swoop

17th April 2007, 17:49

*Yawn*
Step one... identify your target
(anyone else care to spell out the reamining 6?) I can't be arsed.
#1:Treat every firearm as loaded.
#2:Always point firearms in a safe direction.
#3:Load a firearm only when ready to fire.
#4:Identify your target.
#5:Check your firing zone.
#6:Store firearms and ammunition safely.
#7:Avoid alcohol or drugs when handling firearms.

For example, not much shooting at adult chest height if it were Finn that broke in your house!
Probably get him in the head though...

Actually it is a perfect illustration as to why forbidding gun ownership leads to tragedy. VTech campus was declared a "gun-free zone" and as a result only the bad guy was armed.
Proper registration laws (requiring extensive training) can take care of excessive trigger-happiness.
Registration of the firearm dosen't work, as we all know. The user is a different matter entirely.

Everyone knows Canada isn't a real country though :dodge:
Like "Middle Earth"?

Clerk drew and fired three shots from his Glock, all hitting robber in torso.Robber ran and collapsed just outside door. He survived and was sentenced to 8 years jail, if I recall correctly.
Classic example of 9mm in action...:whistle:

IQ or shoe size?
BLING - again!!!
EDIT: "must spread..."

(c) Is not ineligible to possess a firearm pursuant to section 18-12-108 or federal law; ...
What criteria disallows posession?

So somewhere safe to use it is in ones pocket as they're going to get the milk?
That must be a very long pocket if you are going to fire a shot (use it) in there...
Perhaps it is a storage area? Perhaps the average pocket isn't large enough to keep a glock in?
Have you ever handled and fired a pistol ATK?

.......... possibilities are endless really :innocent:
Pointed sticks???

mstriumph

17th April 2007, 17:51

Yeah, an arsonists work ain't THAT easy!

BTW, anybody being following the pistol shootings in London over the last year or so?
Seems the UK has some of the most draconian gun laws - pistols especially yet 15 year old wannabe 'gangstas' are shooting their rivals dead.

It's a society thing (Canada has pretty close to the same ratio of guns to people as the US - but look at their mass shooting record) and I'm concerned that maybe London is sliding into the same mentality as some of the US.

yeah
but the pendulum can swing too far mebbe? - little jonnie howard's kneejerk reaction to the Port Arthur Massacre was to introduce draconian [on?] measures here practically outlawing private weapons in oz irrespective that the guns used in the massacre were licenced so it was his crappy licensing system that had failed

he then spent vast amounts of public money buying back licenced weapons from the public

i don't believe that civilians need automotic or semi-automatic weapons but there should be no bar to civilians owning firearms provided there are tests and measures in place to ensure they are held and used responsibly.

*not sure john howard isn't french .............*

jrandom

17th April 2007, 18:00

Classic example of 9mm in action...:whistle:

Come to think of it, I recall hearing that the shooter subsequently found that all three rounds not only fully penetrated the bad guy but actually ended up in the wall of the next room along.

I forget precisely what ammo he was using, but it wasn't hardball, it was one of the expensive uber-wossname ultrashok expando-matic brand name ones. Didn't quite work as advertised, though.

Yet as far as I'm aware, the clerk did not immediately rush out and buy a FOWERTY FAHVE. I guess some people never learn, eh?

Good thing he didn't have a FOWERTY FAHVE there, in fact, or the lady and child would have been traumatised by seeing the bad guy's arms and head explode off as what was left of his body flew across the room and out through the wall into the street.

:laugh:

Scorpygirl

17th April 2007, 18:03

Yes, a sad day indeed. An awful tragedy for everyone involved.

alexthekidd

17th April 2007, 18:23

Come to think of it, I recall hearing that the shooter subsequently found that all three rounds not only fully penetrated the bad guy but actually ended up in the wall of the next room along.

I forget precisely what ammo he was using, but it wasn't hardball, it was one of the expensive uber-wossname ultrashok expando-matic brand name ones. Didn't quite work as advertised, though.

Yet as far as I'm aware, the clerk did not immediately rush out and buy a FOWERTY FAHVE. I guess some people never learn, eh?

Good thing he didn't have a FOWERTY FAHVE there, in fact, or the lady and child would have been traumatised by seeing the bad guy's arms and head explode off as what was left of his body flew across the room and out through the wall into the street.

:laugh:

The ammo was 165g Speer Gold Dots

More info here

http://www.gunaccessories.com/Speer/GoldDotHollowPointPistolBullets.asp

Street Gerbil

17th April 2007, 18:24

Registration of the firearm dosen't work, as we all know.
Well, I do not know that. In fact I know just the opposite. Israel has probably the largest per capita population carrying guns on the street at any given time (concealed or not) yet violence (apart from homicide bombers) is unheard of. Registration of a firearm requires extensive training and annual refresher courses, even for those of us with military background and punishment for possession of an unregistered weapon is severe.
The thing is, when everybody carries a gun, people tend to respect each other, even if only just in case.

Motu

17th April 2007, 18:28

Hitcher

17th April 2007, 18:32

There is a firearms thread for those who wish to embark upon some sort of technical examination of grain weights and calibres. Take that discussion there or have it taken.

jrandom

17th April 2007, 18:37

The ammo was 165g Speer Gold Dots

Where'd you hear that, sunshine? On [gasp]... the internets?

<img src=http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/youtube.png></img>

(If you'd be so kind as to prune and graft appropriately, Hitcher...)

alexthekidd

17th April 2007, 18:39

Its in the description from the guy who posted the video dickhead just tryin 2 help

Hitcher

17th April 2007, 18:39

Where'd you hear that, sunshine? On [gasp]... the internets?

That is Gold.

jrandom

17th April 2007, 18:40

Ah,given the size of me,and the size of the people breaking into my house.....I'd say I'd get my gun out and then get it ripped out of my hand by the guy standing behind me.

That doesn't jibe with the significant number of reported defensive-shooting encounters where lil' old ladies and teenage kids have dropped big burly robbers in their tracks.

That is just such a stupid fucking argument - do you watch too much American TV?

I base all my life choices on Star Trek. So long as I go into a gunfight without a red shirt, I figure on coming out unscathed.

u4ea

17th April 2007, 18:41

Yes, a sad day indeed. An awful tragedy for everyone involved.

R.I.P................................

jrandom

17th April 2007, 18:42

Its in the description from the guy who posted the video dickhead

:lol:

Say.

No.

More...

NZHog

17th April 2007, 19:25

"Clerk got a pat on the back from the local PD."

Should have got a .45.

jrandom

17th April 2007, 19:31

Should have got a .45.

Yes, I suppose it had to be the guy on the Hogley who said that.

And it's pronounced FOWERTY FAHVE, thank you very much.

NZHog

17th April 2007, 19:55

I was trying to keep it short & sucked sink...

I have put in excess of 20k 9mm rounds thru a Glock, but if I was picking one for carry it would be a FOWERTY FAHVE.

Swoop

17th April 2007, 20:09

Yet as far as I'm aware, the clerk did not immediately rush out and buy a FOWERTY FAHVE. I guess some people never learn, eh?

Good thing he didn't have a FOWERTY FAHVE there, in fact, or the lady and child would have been traumatised by seeing the bad guy's arms and head explode off as what was left of his body flew across the room and out through the wall into the street.
Shit no! The whole building would have expoloded with a mushroom cloud over it! Serious. I sawed it on the internit!!!

Timber020

17th April 2007, 21:30

Oh yeah, it would have been much better if more kids had guns at the tech.

In classroom number 2 Shooter number one (the official spree killer) lets off a fistful

In classroom 1, Good, cleancut, well practiced, redneck gun loving jock hears the shooting, and as others duck for cover he draws his springfield match 45 from his bag and bravely heads for the hallway to protect his fellow alumni

In classroom 3, Good, cleancut, well practiced, redneck gun loving jock hears the shooting, and as others duck for cover he draws his springfield match 45 from his bag and bravely heads for the hallway to protect his fellow alumni.

All three meet in the crowded student filled hallway.

Or a plainsclothes armed cop shows up

Or one good guy kills spree killer but in case its like columbine with 2 shooters he stays at the ready and bumps into another student at the ready.

The problem often is that the guys that most want to carry guns are the types who should least carry them, just like the people who most want to be politicians probably shouldnt be. US needs better gun control, I have heard all the arguements, but have seen the reality. I was a member of the NRA and been around more rednecks that a slave trader. Guys who love guns think they are the answer, but they are only looking the the problem from there own sights.

oldrider

17th April 2007, 22:53

The medical profession don't carry "guns" but they manage to kill more people per year than get killed on the road and nobody even turns a hair! :yes:

Emotional subject, guns! :sick:

scumdog

17th April 2007, 23:00

Oh yeah, it would have been much better if more kids had guns at the tech.

In classroom number 2 Shooter number one (the official spree killer) lets off a fistful

In classroom 1, Good, cleancut, well practiced, redneck gun loving jock hears the shooting, and as others duck for cover he draws his springfield match 45 from his bag and bravely heads for the hallway to protect his fellow alumni

In classroom 3, Good, cleancut, well practiced, redneck gun loving jock hears the shooting, and as others duck for cover he draws his springfield match 45 from his bag and bravely heads for the hallway to protect his fellow alumni.

All three meet in the crowded student filled hallway.

Or a plainsclothes armed cop shows up

Or one good guy kills spree killer but in case its like columbine with 2 shooters he stays at the ready and bumps into another student at the ready.

Then there's the scenario where the shooter(s) know (or maybe don't know?) that several others around them in the area may also be carrying guns - and these others may shoot them - and the shooter(s) don't exactly know WHO around them is armed......

gunnyrob

17th April 2007, 23:11

Roight, ere we go then. Lots of people (quite rightly) will condemn the spread of firearms in the states. unfortunately, under thier right to bear arms, it's a given that these sorts of things will occur from tiime to time. To put it bluntly (REALLY BLUNTLY) this incident would have been minimised if one of the victims or witnessess had on their persons a firearm powerful enough to drop the perp during the incident.

The golden rule of history is: Those with the weapons, make the rules. that's it.

If some fecker comes gunning for me, I'll happily beat his brains out with a softball bat or whatever else it takes to survive. I'll never take death lying down, whimpering for mercy. (cos it won't come from a psycho)

Anyway, let's yak about bikes.

Mr Merde

17th April 2007, 23:37

As much as this pains me to say.... yes.

Not having met the man in person, but having the pleasure of conversation with him via this board, I would also agree.

Some people dont have to rant and rave in vain attempts to make themselves sound important. Some individuals are capable of rational thought and very seldom resort to rhetoric and emotional cliches.

These people are usually the quiet well educated majority. The so called silent majority and I personally would trust this person.

Mr Merde

17th April 2007, 23:48

So where in responsible is a Semi Auto 9MM Pistol?

Ah the ubiquiteous 9mm, favorite caliber of all those wannabe baddies. The mock hard men who go around saying how wonderful they are. The caliber so often portrayed being fired horizontal, upside down and capable of penetrating a bulletproof jacket where all else fails.

The favourite caliber of those kiddies that grew up playing computer games where the 9mm rules all.

Its nothing to do with the caliber.

Its all to do with the person who holds the firearm. Responsibility rests with the individual unless you live in the nanny state, where all responsibility has been removed from you or at least nulified, and you have been force fed PC crap in order to perpetuate the myth that nothing is your fault.

Wake up and smell the roses. Think for yourself and take responsibility for your own actions. Unfortunately this may entail actually having to concieve an original thought and therefore may be damaging to your subconcious.

Mr :shit:

kro

18th April 2007, 06:19

It's sad to say, but America has a cliche killing pattern for angst teens, with poor coping mechanisms for being teased, and ready access to guns.

The High School "massacre" is just that, a cliche kill, and I will guarantee there will be underground websites dedicated to them, and a cult following of each one, with the killers being immortalised as martyrs and heros.

Americans are not only soft physically, they are soft mentally, and look to blame all their woes on something, or someone else, rather than just manning the hell up, and dealing with shit. Boo hoo, I was teased at school, and the popular kids didn't like me........ big fucking deal pal, you just described 70% of kids in school.

There will be a period of grief, a lawsuit thrown here and there, and Heston will to continue to wave his constitutional rights in the faces of grieving families. This is all that ever happens. Don't read this post wrong, I feel for the families, and these events are tragedies in the true meaning of the word, but these kids make me angry.

scumdog

18th April 2007, 08:10

Americans are not only soft physically, they are soft mentally, and look to blame all their woes on something, or someone else, rather than just manning the hell up, and dealing with shit. Boo hoo, I was teased at school, and the popular kids didn't like me........ big fucking deal pal, you just described 70% of kids in school.

My observations are that one day some guy in another country will be saying the same thing about New Zealanders.

More and more I see kids why say "it's not my fault" - "I can't do that I might get hurt" and even worse, are supported by parents of like minds.

(Except when they guzzle cheap alcopop drinks and drive like effwits, they never think they're going to be hurt then - but if they do it's the mythical "somebody elses" fault)

Personal Responsibility? Pffft! They don't know the meaning!!

Swoop

18th April 2007, 08:36

In classroom number 2 Shooter number one.......blah, blah, blah
Perhaps if a person has a handgun on them, they would choose to sit tight and then wait for the authorities to arrive, rather than try to hunt down said perp (as described in your scenario)?

According to the student interviewed on last nights news, the perp came to him, not the other way around.

Swoop

18th April 2007, 08:42

Well, I do not know that. In fact I know just the opposite. Israel has probably the largest per capita population carrying guns on the street at any given time (concealed or not) yet violence (apart from homicide bombers) is unheard of. Registration of a firearm requires extensive training and annual refresher courses, even for those of us with military background and punishment for possession of an unregistered weapon is severe.
The thing is, when everybody carries a gun, people tend to respect each other, even if only just in case.
Israel is a bit different being a militarized country. Quite similar to Switzerland really in that sense.

I was thinking of countries like NZ, where registering the person, but not the gun, works well.
The other end of the spectrum is Canada, where they have attempted to register each and every firearm. A total disaster. The system has costs rising into the billions of dollars but has yet to solve a single crime.
Nice to see tax dollars being used wisely.

scumdog

18th April 2007, 08:58

The other end of the spectrum is Canada, where they have attempted to register each and every firearm. A total disaster. The system has costs rising into the billions of dollars but has yet to solve a single crime.
Nice to see tax dollars being used wisely.

Speaking of the above, has registration EVER prevented a shooting?

I doubt it very much - and all the arguments for registration are 'feel good' arguments.

Politicians:"Lets register guns, THAT will make things safer and stop these shootings"

Non gun-owning public: "Yeah, do it, it'll save lives and make things safer"

Nobody: "How will it save lives?????"

Swoop

18th April 2007, 09:08

Speaking of the above, has registration EVER prevented a shooting?

I doubt it very much - and all the arguments for registration are 'feel good' arguments.

Politicians:"Lets register guns, THAT will make things safer and stop these shootings"

Non gun-owning public: "Yeah, do it, it'll save lives and make things safer"

Nobody: "How will it save lives?????"
Did you catch that load of bollocks on Campbell Live last night?
What a one-sided propaganda broadcast from that unqualified, pretend academic, phillip alpers.
What a load of crap.
John Campbell. Be ashamed of that type of reporting/interviewing. Biased, one-sided claptrap.

ManDownUnder

18th April 2007, 09:09

Nobody: "How will it save lives?????"

Because we'll have a list!

Lists are good for all sorts of things - they need:
Money to get on the list (revenue's always a good thing)
Administrators (Revenue has to pay for something)
Researchers
Secrecy (God forbid the list should contribute anything meaningful to society at large)
... etc

Lists are the way to go.

Next thing - they should start another list - lets say registering the owners of firearms. Then we could start doing the fun stuff... correlations on number of guns, calibers, sources of guns.

Shit yeah lists are the way to go!

... if only they somehow stopped 9mm semi auto pistols getting into the hands of 12 to 15 year olds who clearly know shit about them and their use so they can go pop a cap in the ass of the other ganstas out there.

Meanwhile - those of us legitimate gun owners and users sit out here, on the lists, waiting to have some of our freedoms or intentions put under the microscope again because some fuckwit loosed off a few rounds of high speed lead to look cool.

I have a simple solution I'd like to propose. Anyone doing dumb shit like that loses the right to remain attached to their trigger finger(s). A stint on White Island might be a fun addition too.

Timber020

18th April 2007, 10:01

Theres no way of reversing the gun culture in the US, but just as full autos were banned I think back in the thirtys, and mail order sight unseen sales were stopped in the 60's, laws can be implemented.

This kid wouldnt have been able to kill anywhere near as many if he didnt have access to automatic pistols. with revolvers, even with speed loaders, his rate of fire and loading cycle would have been drastically reduced. less would have died.

Im not saying ban pistols, as thats simply impossible. But by banning autos and the ammo that they use, you could make alot of headway. 9mm para 380, 40, and 45 are all calibres that are not found in revolvers and seldom found in rifles but are largely used in auto pistols and SMG's such as the ones the columbine kids used. they are only really good for killing people. (although I did find the 380 good for killing racoons at close range). Dont get me wrong, I love letting loose with an MP5 or Springfield match, but they are an ego toy. If you think you need more than 6 shots of 357 or more than 8 of 12 gauge to defend yourself, you need to find yourself a nice padded cell with the outside clad in claymores. Coz theres no safe place in your head.

Keep the revolvers, hunting rifles and shotguns, but if you have a gun capable of killing 20 people in as many seconds, as the bear says "your not here for the hunting are ya"

SpankMe

18th April 2007, 10:36

Cho Seung-Hui (from South Korea) brought the 9 mm Glock 19 for $571 and the background check only took a minute. :shit:

Bloody hell, at least make them go through the process of acquiring a firearms licence before handing out weapons.

You need a licence for a car, you even need a licence for a dog, so why not a firearm??

Joni

18th April 2007, 10:38

I presume this will go on mass murder fairly quickly huh Spank?

Swoop

18th April 2007, 10:50

Keep the revolvers, hunting rifles and shotguns, but if you have a gun capable of killing 20 people in as many seconds, as the bear says "your not here for the hunting are ya"
How many deaths are caused by revolvers per year? MUCH cheaper to purchase and far more prevalent on the streets.
How many from rifles?

Coming out and saying "ban this but don't ban that" is bollocks. All you have done is allowed yourself to be duped by the anti-gun lobby.
Their tactic is to divide and conquer.

England has allowed itself to ban all handguns, yet STILL violent handgun deaths are occurring throughout the UK and particularly in the big cities. Why? Simply because criminals do not obey laws, resulting in only UK's law abiding citizens being punished.

SpankMe

18th April 2007, 11:22

jonbuoy

18th April 2007, 11:40

He could just have easily done the same with a home made bomb. Tough call. A handgun is more easily concealed than a hunting rifle. There are still illegal handguns in circulation in the UK but you would have to know the right people to get one - not just walk into the local gun shop and fill out a form.

scumdog

18th April 2007, 12:00

Did you catch that load of bollocks on Campbell Live last night?
What a one-sided propaganda broadcast from that unqualified, pretend academic, phillip alpers.
What a load of crap.
John Campbell. Be ashamed of that type of reporting/interviewing. Biased, one-sided claptrap.

Nah, dang, at the old ladys 80th birthday!

Alpers? A self-serving egotisttical twat of a wind-mill jouster.

Dangerous because he's 'accepted' and ignorant at the same time.

Indiana_Jones

18th April 2007, 12:24

England has allowed itself to ban all handguns, yet STILL violent handgun deaths are occurring throughout the UK and particularly in the big cities. Why? Simply because criminals do not obey laws, resulting in only UK's law abiding citizens being punished.

Exactly.

Also, John Campbell is a pompus, up himself, left wing, faggot nuts.

-Indy

Swoop

18th April 2007, 12:27

Nah, dang, at the old ladys 80th birthday!.
Hmm. My Mums 78th was on the weekend. Hope you took your Mum somewhere nice for dinner!

Dangerous because he's 'accepted' and ignorant at the same time.
Ain't that the truth.
"Deluded" could fit in there somewhere as well.

Exactly.
Also, John Campbell is a pompus, up himself, left wing, faggot nuts.
Actually, I have quite enjoyed his shows, ... until now that is. Last nights performance was the type of gutter drivel that one would expect from the likes of a sensationalist egotist, such as paul holmes.
Completely unbalanced, one-sided <strike>reporting</strike> media crap.

SARGE

18th April 2007, 12:32

:corn::corn::corn::corn::corn: :bs:

jonbuoy

18th April 2007, 12:35

:corn::corn::corn::corn::corn: :bs:

Good to see your back there sarge.

Sniper

18th April 2007, 12:39

:corn::corn::corn::corn::corn: :bs:

Wondered where you been matey. Its been hard work keeping some hooligans in line

Hitcher

18th April 2007, 13:42

Good to see your back there sarge.

And good to see his front as well?

Finn

18th April 2007, 13:50

:corn::corn::corn::corn::corn: :bs:

Cat got your tongue Sarge?

I can see that you've taken an interest in this thread and I know how it must make you feel. Being a staunch democrat, it must surely make your blood boil. I mean, when will your fellow American's get it through their thick, arrogant, red neck heads that their right to bear arms is ridiculous. This gun ho attitude got them into all this mess in Iraq, a war they have lost. Like yourself, I would have thought that 911 would have taught them a lesson.

Hope you're doing well mate.

mstriumph

18th April 2007, 14:11

........ The problem often is that the guys that most want to carry guns are the types who should least carry them, just like the people who most want to be politicians probably shouldnt be. US needs better gun control, I have heard all the arguements, but have seen the reality. I was a member of the NRA and been around more rednecks that a slave trader. Guys who love guns think they are the answer, but they are only looking the the problem from there own sights.

- or THROUGH their own sights, mebbe?

I lived in South Africa
My motorcycle was my primary form of transport
I am female [yes, really ........]

Irrespective of how I would like to view the world, that did make me a target at that time in that part of the country and on some of the roads i travelled

I carried an automatic that i made sure i was as familiar with as my morning face and knew how to use
I had run through all the 'what if' scenarios in my head and had arrived at a place, intellectually, morally and viscerally where i was comfortable with how/when/why i would fire

I never shot anyone, but i have no doubt whatsoever that i could and would have done, had the circumstances arisen - and i would have shot to kill

does that make me a bad, irresponsible, gun-happy redneck?
nahhhhhhhhh - just makes me a survivor!

Finn

18th April 2007, 14:39

I never shot anyone...

Damn it. You should have taken a ride into Joburg at night then. My brothers count was 28 legally and probably a few questionable ones on the side before he vanished.

Street Gerbil

18th April 2007, 14:44

Welcome back, Sarge!

mstriumph

18th April 2007, 15:18

Damn it. You should have taken a ride into Joburg at night then. My brothers count was 28 legally and probably a few questionable ones on the side before he vanished.
rode there - but daytime only .........

Finn

18th April 2007, 15:20

rode there - but daytime only .........

No excuse then. They're easier to see in the daylight.

Timber020

18th April 2007, 15:37

How many deaths are caused by revolvers per year? MUCH cheaper to purchase and far more prevalent on the streets.
How many from rifles?

Coming out and saying "ban this but don't ban that" is bollocks. All you have done is allowed yourself to be duped by the anti-gun lobby.
Their tactic is to divide and conquer.

England has allowed itself to ban all handguns, yet STILL violent handgun deaths are occurring throughout the UK and particularly in the big cities. Why? Simply because criminals do not obey laws, resulting in only UK's law abiding citizens being punished.

I havent been duped by the anti gun lobby. I was pro gun when I lived in the states, and was generally only around pro gun people including working with members of NJ and NY swat. Being around guys who frequently carried and working with the youth at risk gave me alot of insights to the positive and negative effects of handguns. I carried

Lots are killed by all sorts of weopons every year, but when you want to go postal and get a good score, the semi auto is the way. Revolvers are cheaper, safer to carry, more reliable and robust. But they have a limited rate of fire and you just cant cycle as many rounds with one.

Take the auto's out of the equation and you simply save lives while still allowing people to have perfectly adaquate firepower in the form of a revolver for self defence. Tell me swoop, what would be the downside of loosing auto pistols? (Please dont spout the usual domino theory as its lost all cred since the vietnam war.) But do tell me the negative effects of only having revolvers over autos.

Timber020

18th April 2007, 16:15

Yep, having different licence categories is stupid.

If I can't be trusted with one type of firearm, why can I be trusted with another. I could be just as deadly with a lever action rifle or pump action shotgun as I could with a semi auto rifle with 20 round magazine. Firing faster does not make you more lethal as you wont hit sweet fuck all just pulling the trigger as fast as you can, and pump/lever action rifles can be topped up with ammo as you fire.

You have got to be kidding, perhaps you need more practise with quick shooting at multiple targets, or your the fastest bullet feeder I have ever met!

Have you ever been on a goat shoot? We would go out as we had alot of goats in the area out family farm was. We would take have the usual array or 308's, 22mags, 222, 223, 30-30, 22-250, 303 (you get the idea) but the bullet that took down most goats bar none was always the 7.62x39. I dont even have to tell you why do I?
If we snuck up on a herd of goats, we would let whoever had the slowest firing or lightest shooting gun first then the rest would join in. one time using an old skk I was able to get 8 goats before they bolted over the hill, the two guys, one with a bolt ruger and the other with a 30-30 only got 6 between the two of them.

SpankMe

18th April 2007, 17:10

Gun Control is Bullshit
<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="370" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=409_1176853869"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=409_1176853869"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="quality" value="high"></object>

Swoop

18th April 2007, 18:00

Revolvers are ... safer to carry.
Are they? Do they have a safety?

Tell me swoop, what would be the downside of loosing auto pistols? But do tell me the negative effects of only having revolvers over autos.
Apart from your spelling, what's the difference? It is the OPERATOR of the item in question that matters. Why do people NEED automatic transmissions instead of manual ones? Why do you need a 750 instead of a 250cc bike? Personal choice is the answer.
The death rate of cages is not divided up into "did you use a manual or automatic transmission?". It is the person, the organic part of the situation, that is the problem.

scumdog

18th April 2007, 18:13

jrandom

18th April 2007, 18:15

Take the auto's out of the equation and you simply save lives while still allowing people to have perfectly adaquate firepower in the form of a revolver for self defence.

My choice for carry, if I were working or living in a situation that required it, would be a 4" .357 DA revolver. Six For Sure (tm). I could easily conceal a gun like that. What, though, about a 45kg 5-foot-nothing girl wearing mostly tight clothing due to climate or fashion? [Pause for happy thought] There's nothing much that she can successfully carry other than a single-stack subcompact auto, and you could argue that she's more in need of a weapon than I am.

Tell me swoop, what would be the downside of loosing auto pistols?

Eric Grauffel would need to get a haircut and get a real job...

But do tell me the negative effects of only having revolvers over autos.

You know, I'm having trouble categorically arguing against this.

Here in NZ we already have an analogous law that allows carry of 'pocket knives' but forbids going forth with FOAD huge daggers. Curiously enough, my Spyderco Chinook II just manages to squeeze in under the 'pocket knife' definition...

You either give people the right to choose and then make sure that they take responsibility for their actions, or you try to constrain their options so that they can't choose to do certain potentially-harmful things.

One always needs to strike a balance somewhere along that continuum, and there are no hard-and-fast, demonstrably-correct answers.

scumdog

18th April 2007, 19:10

You have got to be kidding, perhaps you need more practise with quick shooting at multiple targets, or your the fastest bullet feeder I have ever met!

Have you ever been on a goat shoot? We would go out as we had alot of goats in the area out family farm was. We would take have the usual array or 308's, 22mags, 222, 223, 30-30, 22-250, 303 (you get the idea) but the bullet that took down most goats bar none was always the 7.62x39. I dont even have to tell you why do I?
If we snuck up on a herd of goats, we would let whoever had the slowest firing or lightest shooting gun first then the rest would join in. one time using an old skk I was able to get 8 goats before they bolted over the hill, the two guys, one with a bolt ruger and the other with a 30-30 only got 6 between the two of them.

But I went rabbit shooting with three mates (YES I HAVE THREE MATES) and we had a sweep-stake, $10 each in the kitty, winner takes all.

Guess who shot the most rabbits and won?
And with a right-handed bolt-action Sako 22? and shoots from the left shoulder?
Admitedly we only shot a total of 150 rabbits for the day but it still meant the Remington and Ruger autos should have had the edge.

Ixion

18th April 2007, 19:21

Do you guys have built in holsters in your anoraks ?

Hitcher

18th April 2007, 19:23

My choice for carry, if I were working or living in a situation that required it, would be a 4" .357 DA revolver.

A 4" Python. Not to be confused with a Liasis olivaceus. Stuffing one of those in one's shorts could be "interesting"...

scumdog

18th April 2007, 19:31

Do you guys have built in holsters in your anoraks ?

No, it's in the leg of my overalls, why do you ask???

doc

18th April 2007, 19:33

jrandom

18th April 2007, 19:35

Python

Can't get those no more, unfortunately, unless you're willing to take a ratty old shot-out one, or import a second-hand minter at great expense.

Do you guys have built in holsters in your anoraks?

I prefer to wedge it in the waistband of my sweatpants.

Grahameeboy

18th April 2007, 19:39

Back on topic for a change. Who cares about this school massacre really. It's in America it's what you would expect from them. Why do we have this preocupation with world news ? We even analaysed after 9/11 someone taking out the skytower. Its all very well commenting afterwards, we are always so much wiser. But who cares really.

Nought wrong with feeling sad for the greaving families but you do have a point in a roundabout (boing said Zebedee) way.............sometimes we concern ourselves more with what goes on 6,000 kms away than we do with things that really concern us closer to home..............

On the other hand, I guess for travellers from NZ what goes on around the world is a concern.

Timber020

18th April 2007, 19:52

Are they? Do they have a safety?

Apart from your spelling, what's the difference? It is the OPERATOR of the item in question that matters. Why do people NEED automatic transmissions instead of manual ones? Why do you need a 750 instead of a 250cc bike? Personal choice is the answer.
The death rate of cages is not divided up into "did you use a manual or automatic transmission?". It is the person, the organic part of the situation, that is the problem.

Yep didnt think you could come up with a reason. Nice try with the 750 250 comparison, unfortunately its not much of a comparison. And due to the risk to self and others its illeagal to ride anything over 250ccs until you prove yourself responsible and competant, which makes them the equivalent of my arguement for people to be limited to revolvers. So thanks!

As for guns women can carry, a Smith and Wesson 340 holds 5 357 and weights only 350 grams, which is probably lighter and shorter than any 9mm auto you can find. Any other postive reasons to keep the autos?

Hitcher

18th April 2007, 20:56

Can't get those no more, unfortunately, unless you're willing to take a ratty old shot-out one, or import a second-hand minter at great expense.

Not that I'm into guns, but I once had the "pleasure" of offloading a few rounds through a work associate's 6" Python. He had a matched pair: full mirror-polished stainless finish with pearl grips. Almost too pretty to shoot. A real handful, and loud.

Swoop

18th April 2007, 22:35

Any other postive reasons to keep the autos?
They have several built-in safety devices (Grip, firing pin, trigger, decocker + H&K squeeze-grip). Revolvers have none.
Felt recoil can be better for smaller handed persons with an auto.
Sight radius is longer on an auto (full length of the slide) so potentially more accurate.
Interestingly enough, the reasons that I have pondered over regarding both types of handgun, firepower hasn't been part of the equasion. I tried to upload an mpeg to illustrate this, but KB didn't agree with filetype or size.
The auto is far flatter than the wheelgun, which can be an advantage at times when carrying.
Reliability is the major issue. The roundgun is better in that repect being far more basic. Rule #2 says that any gun must go bang.
Another point to the circular one: less snag points when drawing from the holster.
Further: reliability. Not having to ease springs in the mag regularly and actions jamming (who hasn't had a case ejection [stovepipe] failure at some stage?).

Would I have one? Yes, but ONLY as a backup though. Primary would be an auto because of felt recoil and it is my personal preference.

The only question is: How are all of the auto's going to be removed from the US society and not the revolvers?
The ammo point is mute since there are revolvers that shoot auto ammo, usually in half-moon clips.

I havent been duped by the anti gun lobby.
My comment was regarding the targeting of a specific class of gun.
In Australia the politicians went out after the semi's and the shotgunners were "well, it's ok so long as we are not affected".
Their tacit support then allowed further momentum to gather by the anti gun brigade. "Well, other shooters support this ban, so let's make things really safer and ban these other types as well..."
Divide and conquer.
A call to ban auto's will start a wedge being put into a crack.

scumdog

18th April 2007, 22:52

They have several built-in safety devices (Grip, firing pin, trigger, decocker + H&K squeeze-grip). Revolvers have none.
Further: reliability. Not having to ease springs in the mag regularly and actions jamming (who hasn't had a case ejection [stovepipe] failure at some stage?).

Glocks have NO manual safety, zip, nada, none.

Put in the mag, rack it, it's ready to go, it's a bang every time you grab it and squeaze the trigger, 17 times..

No Hammer
No Grip Safety.
No De-cocker
No Manual safety-catch.

Revolvers are the same only as long as there is ONE chamber loaded it will go bang eventually...

No mag
No broken extractor/ejector.
No 'stove-pipe'
No safety of ANY type.

Swoop

18th April 2007, 22:56

Glocks have NO manual safety, zip, nada, none.
Have you noticed that little lever that sticks out from the centre of the trigger?

scumdog

18th April 2007, 22:59

Have you noticed that little lever that sticks out from the centre of the trigger?

Frequently.

Have you noticed how hard it is to squeeze said tigger without touching it? let alone deperessing it??

Not what I call a 'real' safety.

Swoop

18th April 2007, 23:02

Frequently.

Have you noticed how hard it is to squeeze said tigger without touching it? let alone deperessing it??

Not what I call a 'real' safety.
What glock calls a "passive safety".
There is a retrofit kit that allows a thumb style safety to be fitted.

scumdog

18th April 2007, 23:05

What glock calls a "passive safety".
There is a retrofit kit that allows a thumb style safety to be fitted.

Safeties are for ill-controlled pussies.

I operate 'hot' as soon as the mag goes in - even when hunting.

I'll concede to 'half-open' bolt though.

Timber020

18th April 2007, 23:52

Smaller hands work best with revolvers as you can have a grip that perfectly fits your hand, your not holding onto a grip shaped around a clip. Thats mostly why the eagle is such a bitch to shoot, you need big hands to keep hold of it. they kick more but that often only requires practise to control.

Revolvers using auto ammo is rare. aside from .22's they would probably make up less than 1%. which means a eventual starving of 99% of autos if you make it an offence to sell or possess that ammo.

If I was to choose a c & c it would be a Browning BDM, I like autos, they are a fun bit of kit, but I also like grenades and find the idea of having a bloop gun amusing. But I understand that theres very good reasons for them not being available. Id like to have them, I could conjure up situations in which they would be needed but its really about want and any justification would be pretty shallow and would be ignoring the fact that ultimately alot of other people would suffer.

scumdog

18th April 2007, 23:58

I notice that most of America limits civilians to 10-shot mags now for their autos.
Another sop to the uneducated and to make them 'think' the politicians are doing something about the gun 'problem'.

Finn

19th April 2007, 01:36

Back on topic for a change. Who cares about this school massacre really. It's in America it's what you would expect from them. Why do we have this preocupation with world news ? We even analaysed after 9/11 someone taking out the skytower. Its all very well commenting afterwards, we are always so much wiser. But who cares really.

It's because nothing exciting ever happens in NZ. Ohhh, it's the beginning of winter and a snow blizard covers a South Island farm and some sheep die. Every fucken year without fail.

Do you realise that more people die each year from a savage attack by a anteater than school shootings? Do they get a mention?

Mr Merde

19th April 2007, 08:51

Surely fishing rods should now be banned as it has been widely known by the powers that be, that more people die each year partaking in the sport of fishing than in all the shooting sports.

In fact shouldnt baths, in bathrooms, be licenced as there are more drownings in such.

Swoop

19th April 2007, 08:54

Do you realise that more people die each year from a savage attack by a anteater than school shootings? Do they get a mention?
One would have thought that someone would have tracked this rogue anteater down and killed it.

Mr Merde

19th April 2007, 09:09

One would have thought that someone would have tracked this rogue anteater down and killed it.

What and earn the wrath of the WWF, the greenies, the politically correct, the animal activists and Sue Bradford.

I would prefer to let the damm thing chew my arm off than unloose that load of rabid arsewipes

SARGE

19th April 2007, 09:31

My comment was regarding the targeting of a specific class of gun.
In Australia the politicians went out after the semi's and the shotgunners were "well, it's ok so long as we are not affected".
Their tacit support then allowed further momentum to gather by the anti gun brigade. "Well, other shooters support this ban, so let's make things really safer and ban these other types as well..."
Divide and conquer.
A call to ban auto's will start a wedge being put into a crack.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Sniper

19th April 2007, 09:37

Well said.......

Swoop

19th April 2007, 11:52

BLACKSBURG, Virginia - The gunman who went on a deadly rampage at Virginia Tech university this week paused between shootings to mail a rambling account of grievances to NBC, the network said today.

In the latest bizarre twist, NBC said the package bore a stamp recording that it had been received at a Virginia post office at 9.01am local time on Monday, about an hour and 45 minutes after Cho had shot two people in a dormitory and shortly before he went on the rampage at Norris Hall where he killed a further 30 people.

NBC News President Steve Capus said on the NBC website the package included an 1,800-word manifesto-like statement which contained "vague references" including "things like 'this didn't have to happen'".

They reported it also included 23 Quicktime video files and 29 photographs.

"You had a hundred billion chances and ways to have avoided today," Cho says on one of the videos, according to NBC. "But you decided to spill my blood. You forced me into a corner and gave me only one option. The decision was yours. Now you have blood on your hands that will never wash off."

The network turned over the material, which arrived earlier today, to the FBI. Virginia Police Superintendent Steve Flaherty said the development could be a "very critical component of this investigation."

The new details added to an already chilling portrait of Cho Seung-Hui, a 23-year-old student from South Korea who massacred 32 people and then took his own life on Monday in the bloodiest shooting spree in modern US history.

The dispatch of the package to NBC was earlier confirmed by Flaherty, who told reporters: "Earlier today NBC News in New York received correspondence that we believe was from Cho."

The disclosure followed word from university police that Cho had been accused of stalking women students and was taken to a psychiatric hospital in 2005 because of worries he was suicidal.

Still grieving for the victims, students and teachers have described a sullen loner whose creative writings for his English literature degree were so laced with violence and venom that they alarmed some of those around him.

University Police Chief Wendell Flinchum said his officers confronted Cho in late 2005 after two women complained separately that he had harassed them in person, through phone calls and with instant messages.

"I'm not saying they were threats; I'm saying they were annoying," Flinchum told a news conference at the sprawling rural campus in southwestern Virginia.

After the second incident in December 2005, Cho's roommate warned police he might be suicidal, prompting them to issue a "temporary detention order" and send him to a nearby mental health facility for evaluation, Flinchum said.

Officials would not say how long Cho stayed at the facility, but roommates said he was gone for a couple of days. The women declined to file charges against Cho. Neither was among his victims on Monday, police said.

- REUTERS, NZHERALD STAFF

SpankMe

19th April 2007, 12:35

VA Tech Killer Cho Seung-Hui Manifesto (partial)

From AP news, VA Tech Killer Cho Seung-Hui mailed a video manifesto to NBC the day of the killings, which was recieved 2 days later.

<object type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="450" height="370" wmode="transparent" data="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=4ea_1176941595"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/player.swf?autostart=false&token=4ea_1176941595"><param name="wmode" value="transparent"><param name="quality" value="high"></object>

jrandom

19th April 2007, 16:13

They have several built-in safety devices (Grip, firing pin, trigger, decocker + H&K squeeze-grip). Revolvers have none.

The standard DA trigger pull on your average revolver is plenty safe enough for carry, although I imagine that most of them are less drop-safe than, say, Glocks, which have an integral drop safety that offsets the firing pin from the primer when the trigger isn't depressed.

Personally, I don't see external safeties as adding any real value - in fact I think they give a false sense of security. When it comes to firearms, if I can't see an open action and an empty chamber, then as far as I'm concerned, the weapon is ready to fire. There are far too many commercial rifles and pistols that fail drop tests with their external safeties still engaged.

19th April 2007, 20:03

Let's say, hypothetically, that I, a Bad Man, turn up at your house intent on raping the female family members, killing everybody and then nicking off with the DVD player. Let's say that I brought a gun.

Would you rather:

(a) meet me in the hallway with a gun of your own; or

(b) er... die?

You, like the other wannabe gun-tooting cowboys on here, are deliberately missing the point. What if you couldn't just walk into the corner shop, slap down your credit card and buy a gun in the first place! Then the above scenario couldn't happen. The point that most of those with more than 2 brain cells to rub together are trying to discuss is the carnage caused by Americas love affair with guns. Their no questions asked gun sales has provided idiots who go off the rails with a purpose built tool to kill en masse. These nutters could have decided to buy 200 rounds of plastic paperclips to try and kill their class mates. But no, to date no mass killer has tried that approach. Why is that? because paperclips weren't designed to kill ,and kill efficiently as possible. Others on here have tried the stupid smokescreen argument that guns are no different than cars or motorbikes which can also kill. Piss off. Show me the historical and technical evidence that the internal combustion engine and it's spins offs - the car and motorbike were; invented; designed and built; and mass produced and improved over decades just for the specific purpose of killing other creatures.
Go buy a Toyoto Corrolla and try and sneak from classroom to glassroom killing 32 people over 2 hours with it. THAT'S THE POINT. Guns are small, easy to carry, conceal and ideal for killing so there should be some careful controls over who has access to them.

Finn

19th April 2007, 20:16

doc

19th April 2007, 20:30

I noticed on tonights news that up to 200 people died today from a terrorist car bomb in Iraq but no one mentions that on KB cause they're just rags heads and nobody cares if they die. If it happened in Australia you would. Oh wait, that's a bad example.

Yeah and you don't need a gun licence there either, probably buy explosives at your local market stall without a ticket Maybe we should be allowed explosives too. Cause we want too.

scumdog

19th April 2007, 20:36

You, like the other wannabe gun-tooting cowboys on here, are deliberately missing the point. What if you couldn't just walk into the corner shop, slap down your credit card and buy a gun in the first place! Then the above scenario couldn't happen. The point that most of those with more than 2 brain cells to rub together are trying to discuss is the carnage caused by Americas love affair with guns.

Mwahaha, 'slap down your credit card and BUY a gun'?

How many criminal shooters in New Zealand BUY a gun - from a gun shop??

IF they buy one it will be for eff-all and it will have been stolen/smuggled in in the first place.

Ixion

19th April 2007, 20:43

But that would be illegal :nono:

19th April 2007, 21:30

Not arguing that crims in NZ get guns and steal guns Scummy. My point is how much worse would it be if they could all just wander in to a shop, prove that they are over 21 and buy as many rifles & handguns as they feel like. No background check, no Police check. Would that make you feel safer everytime you were rushing to a domestic bust up knowing that every house probably has a pistol in it.
It sure would make it easier for crims to steal guns if every house had a few lying around. No system is foolproof but if I was a cop I'd rather work in NZ than the USA.

Timber020

19th April 2007, 22:40

Forest

19th April 2007, 23:03

I read in the newspaper that the shooter was chinese.

Bloody typical! Yet another asian overachiever ;)

Swoop

20th April 2007, 09:13

You, like the other wannabe gun-tooting cowboys on here, are deliberately missing the point.
Too damn late in the US. The genie is out of the bottle and isn't going to get back inside, in the forseeable future.
In the US, you don't know when "something" (bank robbery, gang turf war, psycho with an attitude) will put your life in imminent danger.
UNLESS at X time on X date, EVERYONE in the US places their guns into a furnace and the nation becomes disarmed, then the status quo will remain.
Can you see this happening?

Maybe some of us are just realists.

davereid

20th April 2007, 09:20

Not arguing that crims in NZ get guns and steal guns

Pretty clearly gun control has little or no effect on the availability of guns to criminals.

Mr. G. Burton (unfortunately recently not deceased) demonstrated his ability to get his hands on a range of firearms including handguns and other military equipment, even while under "strict" supervision.
Yet handguns are very tightly controlled in NZ, tighter control than anything proposed for the USA.

Britain has even stricter controls than us, and yet its gun crime rate is growing. Some cities in the UK (like Manchester) have higher gun crime rates than most parts of the USA.

And even in good old crime free Japan, where the theft of a bicycle gets days of police attention, and guns are completely banned, a politician was just topped with a handgun.

Interestingly, Virginia Tech was a "Gun Free" zone, which apparently only stopped the good guys having guns.

Compare the mass shooting at "Gun Free VT" to Appalaician School of Law, Pearl High School, Edinboro Graduation, and Trolley Square.

At VT the mass murderer decided when the killing would stop. At all the others armed students - teachers or shoppers stopped the murderer before it became a mass murder.

And overnight, here in good old NZ, another person was knifed to death at home. Maybe we need knife registration as well.

Mr Merde

20th April 2007, 09:53

.......

And overnight, here in good old NZ, another person was knifed to death at home. Maybe we need knife registration as well.

More so, using the argument of most of the anti gun fraternity, knives were designed to kill and then adapted for other uses.

Oh goodness they are just like guns.

While we are there I think that the game of darts should also be banned as they are an adaptation of weapons of war as are the sports of discuss throwing, javelin and shotput.

Come to think of it all team games seem to derive some sort of confrontational exercise and they should all be banned as they foster an unhealthy attitude.

jrandom

20th April 2007, 10:48

You, like the other wannabe gun-tooting cowboys on here, are deliberately missing the point. What if you couldn't just walk into the corner shop, slap down your credit card and buy a gun in the first place! Then the above scenario couldn't happen.

You're getting upset, and you're missing the point that I was making. I don't think anybody's arguing that guns should be sold like candy. In fact, I'm not sure if there's anywhere in the USA where you can purchase a firearm without a background check run against a Police database.

It so happened that the Virginia Tech shooter didn't have a criminal record, so he could buy a gun. He had, however, been committed to a mental institution at one point, which would have stopped him getting a firearms licence in NZ.

Go back and read all of my posts in this thread, and you'll understand my position vis-a-vis gun control, criminal violence and pragmatism.

You can't disarm the USA. Maybe you could have 150 years ago, but that cat left the bag a long, long time ago. All you can do now is try to minimise harm.

It's funny, you know. Non-shooters, when talking about firearms, sound very much like cage drivers when talking about motorcycles. If everyone was somehow forced to spend six months becoming intimately acquainted with anything they want to rant about the evils of, the world would become a much more reasonable place.

riffer

20th April 2007, 13:15

I noticed on tonights news that up to 200 people died today from a terrorist car bomb in Iraq but no one mentions that on KB cause they're just rags heads and nobody cares if they die. If it happened in Australia you would. Oh wait, that's a bad example.

Then I suggest you re-read the thread. I made a point about this in post 86 (http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1017090&postcount=86).

Some people DO care about these things.

And I seem to recall a lot of people got just as upset about Aramoana and Port Arthur.

Do some research before you shoot your mouth off please.

riffer

20th April 2007, 13:16

It's funny, you know. Non-shooters, when talking about firearms, sound very much like cage drivers when talking about motorcycles. If everyone was somehow forced to spend six months becoming intimately acquainted with anything they want to rant about the evils of, the world would become a much more reasonable place.

This is quite possibly one of the most sensible things I've ever read on this site.

20th April 2007, 13:48

More so, using the argument of most of the anti gun fraternity, knives were designed to kill and then adapted for other uses.

Oh goodness they are just like guns.

While we are there I think that the game of darts should also be banned as they are an adaptation of weapons of war as are the sports of discuss throwing, javelin and shotput.

Come to think of it all team games seem to derive some sort of confrontational exercise and they should all be banned as they foster an unhealthy attitude.

1. Mr Merde. Who said I'm with the anti gun frat? I have used guns, I have enjoyed using guns. I used to go out bunny hunting with my Dad many moons ago. I was blasting away a few months ago at the gun club. Shit it's boring isn't it.
2.cough, cough, I'm choking here. Turn down the smokescreen machine. Knives and darts are not like guns. They are not made solely to be able to kill creatures. Let me repeat, try and sneak from classroom to classroom killing 32 people over two hours armed with only a knife or a dart . Doubt you will succeed. That's the difference..

Fish you are quite right my emotions soured like a bird, until I was shot down (trying to be funny Ok). Sorry about that rant. I hear what you're saying, the yanks have far too many guns in too many hands now and there's no way to turn the clock back. Or is that turn the Glock back.
Davereid - you say our gun control has had little effect in keeping guns away from crims. Maybe but... This is where I support our gun control. Without it the problem would be 100 times worse. All I'm saying is that with our control, lets say one in 50 serious crims currently has or can get a gun in need, with some degree of difficulty I would imagine. Now bring in Yank rules, sell 8,000,000 handguns across the country and see what changes. I'd say all serious crims would soon have a gun. I don't like that scenario.
I read yesterday that Cho simply walked in, used his credit card and within minutes walked out ready to kill. A nuclear bomb must require a 7 day stand down period I guess. Great place to live... and die.
True story. Mate was living in Detroit some years ago.. Driving passed a bar after two dicks were leaving it after having a fight/argument with each other. Minutes later one of them passed my friend's car (who's wife was beside him) and pulled out a gun, shot dead the car driver in the lane near to my mate. Turned out he targetted the wrong driver aswell. Little comfort to the dead man and his family. He couldn't have done that with a knife or dart.