American College Shooting, rinse repeat

Manic Moran

AbusesToilets wrote:

There are controls on guns,not enough perhaps.

Depends on the purpose. My SIG has a trigger, decocker, no safety, mag release. On the other hand, my Hi-Power has a trigger, safety, but no decocker. (Single-action). Has a mag release, but also a magazine safety, which would probably need removing.

A target pistol can usually get away with more controls on it than a combat pistol. The fewer controls there are, the less likely one is to mess up if stressed.

I listened to the shooter's manifesto on the radio today. Total nutter. Not entirely sure it's a good thing that the media are broadcasting this all though, it may well just encourage copycats. (Though if they're nutty enough to do this sort of thing, I'm not convinced they need the incentive)

what sort of check do they do over the counter when buying a gun? do they do police check right there

Depends on the state. Here in California, the check is done during the 10-day-waiting period (Which I think is a silly rule for repeat purchases) via computer. In other states, it's done using the National Instant Check System, which generally involves a 20-minute 'phone call to the government agency. If you are given a clean bill of health, out you go with your firearm

NTM

AbusesToilets

I was talking about controls on purchasing and the like.I'm all for people being able to shoot and i think the need of people to look for "something" to blame for this,be it the law or some aspect of media/consumer society,betrays an unwillingness to take responsibility for personal actions.
I think that there is a case to be made for greater efforts to be made at controlling the ability to purchase firearms.For instance restrictions on the availability of more powerful weapons,a more thorough background check, mandatory safety classes or being a member of a shooting club.It wouldn't "solve" the issue of violent death,but perhaps diminish the numbers somewhat.

homah_7ft

Personally speaking I like how we have things as regards guns here in Ireland. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote:

Depends on the purpose. My SIG has a trigger, decocker, no safety, mag release. On the other hand, my Hi-Power has a trigger, safety, but no decocker. (Single-action). Has a mag release, but also a magazine safety, which would probably need removing.

Depends on the state. Here in California, the check is done during the 10-day-waiting period (Which I think is a silly rule for repeat purchases) via computer. In other states, it's done using the National Instant Check System, which generally involves a 20-minute 'phone call to the government agency. If you are given a clean bill of health, out you go with your firearm

NTM

do the convey soft information ? ie charged but not convicted and ordered to mental health facility but not committed?

Manic Moran

[Edited:] OK. Just confirmed, the NCIS check does list any mental adjudications.

A somewhat prophetic exchange of letters in the Roanoake Times last summer between a student and VA Tech representative.

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/80510

http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/81277

Note the last line about VATech's sound policy preventing firearms in the class... According to a local news station, he's now not responding to inquiries about his response.

NTM

Manic Moran

In an excellent example of politicians not knowing a damned thing about what they're legislating, watch this fun clip from the telly today.

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/04/18/video-carolyn-mccarthy-doesnt-understand-her-own-gun-control-legislation/

Rep McCarthy has just submitted two more gun control bills, so the news anchor asks her about why she's trying to ban weapons with a barrel shroud. She's at totally the wrong end of the gun.

In the meantime, the State of TN has just had a House panel vote to repeal the prohibition on the carriage of sidearms in public areas such as government buildings, parks, and so on.

NTM

CJhaughey

homah_7ft wrote:

Personally speaking I like how we have things as regards guns here in Ireland. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

We have exactly the same type of firearms here as in the states, maybe not as many Semi-automatic rifles but everything else is the same.

Judt

homah_7ft wrote:

Personally speaking I like how we have things as regards guns here in Ireland. I don't feel like I'm missing out on anything.

You mean like "I can get any gun I want, so long as I'm mates with the local firearms officer down the Garda station?" That's how our gun laws work - you can get an M16, if you really want one, but basically all gun licenses are handed out at the discretion of a handful of Gardai. And of course nepotism doesn't exist in Ireland.

nacho libre

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

This isn't the worst mass murder at a school in US history as the media is making it out to be.
It shows you don't need guns to commit mass murder.


Without a doubt, if someone couldn't get a gun they would make pipe bombs or some other device. The resources to make such devices are not difficult to locate. It's all over the internet / chemistry books I bet too. If someone can't use a gun they'd use a hunting rifle or a bow and arrow or spear it makes no difference.

If someone is committed enough I'm confident if a psychopath learned how to use throwing knives he could have killed just as much as this guy. Take any slightly deadly household object and a serial killer will find a way. Just be to sure to add some romantic / tragedy to it like killing people over women they cant **** or kids who bullied them.. they dress up in trench coats and lock doors trapping people inside.. it's a game to them .

It's just a game that makes no sense. It's like mass hysteria. Human beings are very malleable creatures. Give them something better to get attached to and they will. Just brainwash them with something better.

All this talk of gun control it's futile.

lostexpectation

Manic Moran wrote:

[Edited:] OK. Just confirmed, the NCIS check does list any mental adjudications.

so do you reckon the order to attend a menatl health facility would have shown up on the check or would it not have prevented him getting a gun, only if there was previous violence involved ie they don't prevent people with mental health difficulties from getting a gun only those who've been violent.

Manic Moran

so do you reckon the order to attend a menatl health facility would have shown up on the check or would it not have prevented him getting a gun, only if there was previous violence involved ie they don't prevent people with mental health difficulties from getting a gun only those who've been violent.

The law just says 'adjudged mental defect', it doesn't say anything about violence being required.

At any rate, any violence on the record would come under a different prohibition, that on the criminal check. If just ordered to attend a mental facility, but found mentally stable, I doubt it would show on a record, but again, this is getting a little outside my area of knowledge.

NTM

oscarBravo

nacho libre wrote:

If someone can't use a gun they'd use a hunting rifle or a bow and arrow or spear it makes no difference.

Stallone movies notwithstanding, you'd be surprised how difficult it is to kill one person, let alone thirty, with a bow.

Frederico

nacho libre wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

This isn't the worst mass murder at a school in US history as the media is making it out to be.
It shows you don't need guns to commit mass murder.


Without a doubt, if someone couldn't get a gun they would make pipe bombs or some other device. The resources to make such devices are not difficult to locate. It's all over the internet / chemistry books I bet too. If someone can't use a gun they'd use a hunting rifle or a bow and arrow or spear it makes no difference.

If someone is committed enough I'm confident if a psychopath learned how to use throwing knives he could have killed just as much as this guy. Take any slightly deadly household object and a serial killer will find a way. Just be to sure to add some romantic / tragedy to it like killing people over women they cant **** or kids who bullied them.. they dress up in trench coats and lock doors trapping people inside.. it's a game to them .

It's just a game that makes no sense. It's like mass hysteria. Human beings are very malleable creatures. Give them something better to get attached to and they will. Just brainwash them with something better.

All this talk of gun control it's futile.

It doesn't matter how 'psycho' someone is, they are still rational human beings when it comes to everyday objects, they aren't going to get very far throwing ninja stars at people, do you know how hard it is to kill someone with a knife? In comparison to everything else, a gun is miles head. A child can use a gun. In quite a few states right now, its not very hard for just about anyone to arm themselves to the teeth and go on a rampage.

Couple that with the media coverage you get and the notoriety. Remember John Lennon's killer, remember why he did it? These shootings are gonna happen again and again.

I understand 100% why these shootings take place in the States, I think most of us do, because we get to see that country from an outside perspective. However many Americans, mainly the pure core of people the likes of whom learn about life from Dr Phil, they will never understand it. They will look for easy answers, computer games violence/Marilyn Manson, and the talking tv heads give them their easy answers, these are the people who make a living out of Americas dysfuntionality.

lostexpectation

nacho libre wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

This isn't the worst mass murder at a school in US history as the media is making it out to be.
It shows you don't need guns to commit mass murder.


Without a doubt, if someone couldn't get a gun they would make pipe bombs or some other device. The resources to make such devices are not difficult to locate. It's all over the internet / chemistry books I bet too. If someone can't use a gun they'd use a hunting rifle or a bow and arrow or spear it makes no difference.

how many people could you kill with a bow and arrow per minute in closed enviroment or even a crossbow and would you get tackled at some point, how manypeople you kill with a spear when you'd have to get closer to them or throw and loose it, how, or how much explosives would you need to carry to kill 30 in various rooms, you be laden down with explosives.


you guys never become guns salesmen ok :rolleyes:

Sand

The point Nacho was making that wheres theres a psycho - theres a way.

Dwelling on how many kills you could get with a bow or a throwing star is pointless.

Columbine was a screw up on the part of the killers. They orginally intended a series of bombs in the cafeteria - which would have killed up to 600 people. They would then start shooting survivors as they fled. After rescue and police forces turned up they planned for their carbombs to wipe out the remainder.

I.E. they planned for anything up to a 1000 casualties, with the vast majority through bombs, seeking worldwide notoriety. They went to plan B - enter the school shooting - only after it became obvious the cafeteria bombs had failed.

There are strict gun laws in the UK, but still extremists find a way to kill dozens of people with bombs.

The failure here doesnt so much lie with gun laws [Its hard to argue with the notion that if one of the victims had a gun, theyd at least have had a chance. The gunfree policy of the college doesnt appear to have stopped Cho getting his guns on campus, but it did ensure all his lawabiding victims were like lambs to the slaughter] - it lies with the failure to recognise Cho and his issues and respond at an early stage. The next failure was the colleges decision to continue as normal despite 2 murders on campus and a missing gunman. They apparently stopped when they got the boyfriend, who was taken in simply because he owned guns and went to a range. Easy to be wise after the event, but surely stopping classes and locking down the campus until the police had found the guns used [and thus the shooter] would have made some sense.

Craziest comment on the whole thing belongs to the Irish Times editorial that referenced the Iraq War to explain Chos mental state. That's focus.

GuanYin

Sand wrote:

The failure here doesnt so much lie with gun laws [Its hard to argue with the notion that if one of the victims had a gun, theyd at least have had a chance. The gunfree policy of the college doesnt appear to have stopped Cho getting his guns on campus, but it did ensure all his lawabiding victims were like lambs to the slaughter] - it lies with the failure to recognise Cho and his issues and respond at an early stage. The next failure was the colleges decision to continue as normal despite 2 murders on campus and a missing gunman. They apparently stopped when they got the boyfriend, who was taken in simply because he owned guns and went to a range. Easy to be wise after the event, but surely stopping classes and locking down the campus until the police had found the guns used [and thus the shooter] would have made some sense.

I agree with most of your sentiments in principal, but I think you have to cast a wider view of the situation.

There is no doubt in my mind that where there is a will to kill, there is a way, but the issue is really how easy do we make it for a killer?

America has had an inprecidented number of these type of attacks in very recent history yet other countries with similar western values, similar cultures and similar social set ups, haven't.

No correct me on the following points if I am wrong but Ireland, for instance hasn't had a college shooting. Our society looks increasingly towards the US as an example, we have an uneven social balance within our education system and we have the same popularity of violence in our mainstream media. Why then have we not experienced the same problems with attacks from within our schools?

If you argue that our education system isn't as demanding, then we can take Canada as an example. Again, socially and culturally very similar to the US with an education system that is virtually identical with students from the US and Canada attending each other's educational institutes a norm. Again, no history of school violence even comparable to the US's.

What these countries have in common are strict gun laws. Violence is in our society as much as the US's (perhaps more seeing as we are less conservative) yet we have less. Ditto for Canada.

Giving everyone guns to level the field, well that doesn't work either. Law abiding people are not the ones who will raise the stakes, the killers will. If I carry a beretta for protection it's all well and good until I come up against a semi automatic and armour piercing bullets. Sure he may not kill 33 people before someone takes him out, but he may kill 10 and the fact is, he still came in and killed people with a gun.

Leveling the field is not the problem. So unless I'm missing something, why don't similarly cultural countries with stricter gun laws have as much a problem as the US if its not the guns that are the problem?

lostexpectation

Sand wrote:

The point Nacho was making that wheres theres a psycho - theres a way.

Dwelling on how many kills you could get with a bow or a throwing star is pointless.

you're are obviously not a gun saleman either, thowing stars! maybe an expert could kill a fair few people.

Craziest comment on the whole thing belongs to the Irish Times editorial that referenced the Iraq War to explain Chos mental state. That's focus.

bombs are an different matter really, there not weapons as such, especially if they are homemade, and they are atleast a step up from guns.

pointless is saying sure let them have guns atleast there not bombs! :rolleyes:

GuanYin

oscarBravo wrote:

Stallone movies notwithstanding, you'd be surprised how difficult it is to kill one person, let alone thirty, with a bow.

I dunno, bows were a serious problem the Elf Universities of Middle Earth.

But seriously, bows are available in Ireland - why has noone here gone on a rampage with one (apart from the fact they wouldn't be very successful).

Sparks

Judt wrote:

That's how our gun laws work - you can get an M16, if you really want one

Not legally. You might get the licence for one, but EU law prohibits their importation unless you're in the armed forces or the police.
Basicly, our firearms legislation, though the paperwork could do with a tweak to free up more garda man-hours, works as is.
It's not about that, so much as it is about mindset and culture.

newby.204

Judt wrote:

You mean like "I can get any gun I want, so long as I'm mates with the local firearms officer down the Garda station?" That's how our gun laws work - you can get an M16, if you really want one, but basically all gun licenses are handed out at the discretion of a handful of Gardai. And of course nepotism doesn't exist in Ireland.

Obviously a highly intelligent, well researched post. Well done!!:rolleyes: . It can tae up to as long as the gardai want for a licence to come through with stringent checks on the paperwork you hand up for your licence, when you educate yourself on the matter your speaking on then you should feel free to post on our application process.

Manic Moran

What these countries have in common are strict gun laws

Research Canada's firearms status, and get back to us. There is more than one gun for every two Canadians, less than half of which are registered with the Government. The existance of the others is known only from import/manufacturing records.

NTM

AbusesToilets

I know that in order to get a license for a shotgun i needed to be a member of a gun club and have permission from 3 different people to be able to shoot on their land.With all that it was still up to the local Gardai to give final approval on he matter.
I'd heard recently that the laws concerning handgun and rifle ownership had been relaxed so that it was now possible to legally own them.I know that it's possible to get licenses for deer hunting rifles but i had heard that the change meant you could own more high end rifles.Contingent upon you being a member of a gun club and that you are only authorised to shoot on the clubs premises.Anyone have any knowledge of this?

Manic Moran

Generally speaking, yes. Full-calibre handguns and rifles may not be purchased, subject to various restrictions on storage and such.

Check out the shooting forum.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=466

As an academic aside, a chap named Richard Speck managed to kill 8 people in one incident with a knife in 1966. I don't know if that's the 'one-incident-record' with a knife though.

NTM

Manic Moran

One minute youtube video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ospNRk2uM3U

Got to love it when politicians have absolutely no clue what they're legislating about. Rep McCarthy is one of the most dedicated anti-gun legislators there is, her husband was killed by a chap on a shooting spree on a train.

NTM

Grudaire

Manic Moran wrote:

As an academic aside, a chap named Richard Speck managed to kill 8 people in one incident with a knife in 1966. I don't know if that's the 'one-incident-record' with a knife though.

8<32.......:D

transylman

I think some of the posters on this thread have a point. The way to reduce the number of gun deaths is to have more guns, not less. To quote the great Bill HIcks, "There is no connection between having a gun, and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun, and not shooting someone." I for one would feel a lot safer if more students and lecturers carried handguns. I don't understand how a society can function without there being one gun for every person.

So Glad

http://www.cynical-c.com/?p=7191

Every link on that is actually a link to what different newspapers are placing the blame on, ridiculous. There's nothing to blame but everything, it's a perfectly insane reaction to an insane society, no surprises.

</mediapiggingout>

newby.204

transylman wrote:

I think some of the posters on this thread have a point. The way to reduce the number of gun deaths is to have more guns, not less. To quote the great Bill HIcks, "There is no connection between having a gun, and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun, and not shooting someone." I for one would feel a lot safer if more students and lecturers carried handguns. I don't understand how a society can function without there being one gun for every person.

Are you actually serious or is this some sort of insider joke that the rest of us dont get???

Lemming

transylman wrote:

I think some of the posters on this thread have a point. The way to reduce the number of gun deaths is to have more guns, not less. To quote the great Bill HIcks, "There is no connection between having a gun, and shooting someone with it, and not having a gun, and not shooting someone." I for one would feel a lot safer if more students and lecturers carried handguns. I don't understand how a society can function without there being one gun for every person.

erm ... I think you've gotten Mr Hicks wayyyyyyyyy out of context and he's probably turning in his grave. He was actually pointing out that the higher ownership of guns in the US equates to a disproportionate number of gun-related deaths a year, unlike the UK which had (during that particular rant), 14 gun-related deaths the previous year.

Please don't rape Bill Hicks' comments again.

And combating guns with more guns is an insane idea. You essentially create an arms-race between nut-case, joe soap, and paranoid joe soap. And that's on top of someone deciding to "be the hero" in a situation that hasn't escalated and kicks the whole thing off.

oscarBravo

Lemming wrote:

And that's on top of someone deciding to "be the hero" in a situation that hasn't escalated and kicks the whole thing off.

"You know what the definition of a hero is? Someone who gets other people killed."