Teachers in Florida to be permitted to carry guns

jmayo

TeaBagMania wrote: »

wow, the responses from a non-gun culture country are comical

curious as to how many different types of weapons the keyboard commandos have fired in their life?

subbin to this thread

Ehh lots of countries have high gun ownership with freely available firearms, but only the US can have stupid psycho gun culture applied to it.

Manic Moran wrote: »

You make it sound like there aren’t already 9 states where students can carry legally, or that it hasn’t been a thing since 2007. (Granted, since the normal age limits apply, these students are invariably in colleges)

Or that at the before Columbine, kids taking their rifles to school (obviously not concealed carry) to go plinking with friends after class wasn’t a thing.

Didn't realise that, although given the screwed up nature of a country that allows a teenager access to very high end military hardware whilst he goes and fights for his country yet not get a drink on his return to the states it shouldn't really surprise me.

Manic Moran wrote: »

The problem is not the guns.

Well actually it is.

The fact you have virtually no control over what weapons anyone can get their hands on is the problem.

I actually like military history and weapons and have had the pleasure of firing a few things, but I don't see why ordinary people should be tooled up to such an extent that it looks like they are off to fight in Afghanistan.

Speaking of Florida, a number of years ago I was at the gun counter in a Wallmart in a midsize town in the centre of the state.
I and a couple of British guys stared in amazement at a guy that purchased what looked like 3 or 4 hundred rounds of ammo, various calibres.

One of the British guys was ex Royal Marine who commented that you would only be on long patrol/action with that amount of ammo.

I don't know if anyone has done research on this, but when did the US start turning towards weapons with big magazines ?
Was it the 70s or 80s ?

Have you ever wondered how come other countries can have high amount of gun ownership, even actual military assault weapons in peoples homes and yet have nowhere near the sheer volume of shootings as in the US ?

ohnonotgmail

dodderangler wrote: »

It’s about time. Majority of these shootings happen in gun free zones. Look. The amount of shootings prevented by a citizen with open carry is pretty impressive. Plenty of videos on it aswell.
Highest gun crimes are always in these gun free zones.
As a gun owner myself I approve

I dont suppsoe you have statistics to support that do you?

dodderangler

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I dont suppsoe you have statistics to support that do you?

As I said. Look it up. Look at the videos. YouTube. Google.
I’m not your feckin mother holding your hand princess.

steddyeddy

dodderangler wrote: »

The whole point of the teachers being armed is to stop mass shootings. Nice try though

Just for you D I'll tag back in. The point might be to stop mass shootings but as points go it's up there anti-vaxxers. It's a system of belief about guns being the solution rather than part of the problem.

The actual research in contrast to the belief shows that more guns don't mean less crime. The research states that in places with guns, gun violence is 6.8 times more likely to happen. You seem to believe the exact oppisite. Can you point me in the direction of research that says arming people will reduce shootings?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows
More firearms do not keep people safe, hard numbers show. Why do so many Americans believe the opposite?

Most of this research—and there have been several dozen peer-reviewed studies—punctures the idea that guns stop violence. In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least. Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.

friendlyfun

America is like some pariah state with its gun violence and unwillingness to tackle gun crime and mass shootings (seem to be weekly).

steddyeddy

dodderangler wrote: »

As I said. Look it up. Look at the videos. YouTube. Google.
I’m not your feckin mother holding your hand princess.

No you're not D. You're someone with a strong belief in guns. Who makes a statement based on that belief and can't back it up. The fact is what you're saying is wrong and you can't provide evidence that it isn't. I have provided research to say the exact opposite of what you're saying. You're representing the gun people here on this thread. I think you can do better than "look up videos princess".

super_furry

notobtuse wrote: »

Teachers who want to carry guns in districts that choose to join the program would have to undergo police-style training, psychiatric evaluation and drug screening.

That's a good idea. They should extend it out to anyone who wants to carry a gun.

ohnonotgmail

dodderangler wrote: »

As I said. Look it up. Look at the videos. YouTube. Google.
I’m not your feckin mother holding your hand princess.

Indeed you're not. You're just somebody spouting made up facts.

Deebles McBeebles

dodderangler wrote: »

As I said. Look it up. Look at the videos. YouTube. Google.
I’m not your feckin mother holding your hand princess.

Temper + gun owner = No problems at all!

dodderangler

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Temper + gun owner = No problems at all!

Oh yeah watch me go out and shoot everyone because some liberals on boards cried at me.
As I said look the stats up yourselves.

Deebles McBeebles

dodderangler wrote: »

Oh yeah watch me go out and shoot everyone because some liberals on boards cried at me.
As I said look the stats up yourselves.

That's exactly the kind of ridiculous excuse people who go on killing spree's use. Not that you would but they certainly would and have.

Stats were already provided by another poster.

dodderangler

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

That's exactly the kind of ridiculous excuse people who go on killing spree's use. Not that you would but they certainly would and have.

Stats were already provided by another poster.

You’re a special kind of something ain’t ya ?

Deebles McBeebles

dodderangler wrote: »

You’re a special kind of something ain’t ya ?

Do you want to keep going.... go on, say what you really mean.

Another lad who can't handle people having a different opinion.

dodderangler

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Do you want to keep going.... go on, say what you really mean.

Another lad who can't handle people having a different opinion.

So I approve of guns in a teachers hand and you are the one to cry on it.
Trust me I would love to say what I feel about snowflakes like yourself but it’ll only end with me being banned. You know how protected you all are because you’ll only cry if youre not happy with someone giving you their two cents.

Deebles McBeebles

dodderangler wrote: »

So I approve of guns in a teachers hand and you are the one to cry on it.
Trust me I would love to say what I feel about snowflakes like yourself but it’ll only end with me being banned. You know how protected you all are because you’ll only cry if youre not happy with someone giving you their two cents.

Not sure I understand but grand, leave it there so.

BattleCorp

jmayo wrote: »

The fact you have virtually no control over what weapons anyone can get their hands on is the problem.

I'd agree with you here. Not everyone should have access to a gun.

I actually like military history and weapons and have had the pleasure of firing a few things, but I don't see why ordinary people should be tooled up to such an extent that it looks like they are off to fight in Afghanistan.

I have a little bit of a problem here. You had the pleasure of firing certain types of guns. You did it safely. Why then do you not want anyone else to fire those types of guns. Surely if a person is safe with one type of gun (one you consider safe), then they are safe with another type (one you consider to be military). Does the type of gun a person owns suddenly make them more likely to run amok with it?

I've this problem here in Ireland too. I'm allowed several guns. I'm considered safe. But I'm not allowed a centrefire handgun (even though I own more powerful guns than that). I don't get it. If I'm safe with other guns, why am I considered to be more of a danger to the public with a centrefire gun. Doesn't make sense to me.

Speaking of Florida, a number of years ago I was at the gun counter in a Wallmart in a midsize town in the centre of the state.
I and a couple of British guys stared in amazement at a guy that purchased what looked like 3 or 4 hundred rounds of ammo, various calibres.

One of the British guys was ex Royal Marine who commented that you would only be on long patrol/action with that amount of ammo.

You are very sheltered if you think 300 or 400 rounds is a lot. I'd shoot that in a day at the range (depending on the type of shooting I was doing). Most target shooters would buy at least 1000 rounds of centrefire ammo at a time (if they had the money). I usually buy 2000 at a time. Several smallbore shooters could buy 10,000 rounds at a time here in Ireland (again if they had the money, ammo is expensive).

I don't know if anyone has done research on this, but when did the US start turning towards weapons with big magazines ?
Was it the 70s or 80s ?

I would have thought that large capacity magazines were always a thing over there. The large casualty school shootings seem to be a recent enough phenomenon, maybe in the last 20 years.

Have you ever wondered how come other countries can have high amount of gun ownership, even actual military assault weapons in peoples homes and yet have nowhere near the sheer volume of shootings as in the US ?

Sorry if I'm insulting Americans here but it looks like it isn't the guns. It's the mental illness or the resorting to violence for every perceived slight/insult given.

BrokenArrows

Just waiting for the news headlines about a teacher who snaps and puts the gun to the head of the class clown.

steddyeddy

dodderangler wrote: »

It’s about time. Majority of these shootings happen in gun free zones. Look. The amount of shootings prevented by a citizen with open carry is pretty impressive. Plenty of videos on it aswell.
Highest gun crimes are always in these gun free zones.
As a gun owner myself I approve

To be honest I think it's pretty scary the amount of gun owners on here who are completely clueless regarding gun statistics. Hopefully Ireland doesn't develop the same gun obsession that America does.

JupiterKid

Utter and complete madness. The gun culture and love affair with guns in the States is a collective sickness, a deadly defect in its national character.

Only a matter of time before a stressed teacher goes postal and guns down their class.

BattleCorp

steddyeddy wrote: »

To be honest I think it's pretty scary the amount of gun owners on here who are completely clueless regarding gun statistics. Hopefully Ireland doesn't develop the same gun obsession that America does.

What statistics exactly?

You needn't worry, we will never have the same gun culture as the US.

Pyr0

JupiterKid wrote: »

Only a matter of time before a stressed teacher goes postal and guns down their class.

Arms the kids and it will be stopped!

BattleCorp

JupiterKid wrote: »

Only a matter of time before a stressed teacher goes postal and guns down their class.

There's a high likelihood that something like that will happen at some stage.

Noveight

Arming teachers to help the problem of school shootings honestly sounds like a joke from Airplane or similar.

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd agree with you here. Not everyone should have access to a gun.

You realise that puts you at odds with most NRA members I've met over here.

Sorry if I'm insulting Americans here but it looks like it isn't the guns. It's the mental illness or the resorting to violence for every perceived slight/insult given.

But as a scientist I can't accept your opinion over the actual facts. The studies here show that increased guns = increased gun crime. Here's some of the take away points:

In a 2015 study using data from the FBI and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, for example, researchers at Boston Children's Hospital and Harvard University reported that firearm assaults were 6.8 times more common in the states with the most guns versus those with the least.Also in 2015 a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.

So what does the research say? By far the most famous series of studies on this issue was conducted in the late 1980s and 1990s by Arthur Kellermann, now dean of the F. Edward Hébert School of Medicine at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, and his colleagues. In one, published in 1993 in the New England Journal of Medicine and funded by the CDC, he and his colleagues identified 444 people who had been killed between 1987 and 1992 at home in three U.S. regions—Shelby County, Tennessee, King County, Washington State, and Cuyahoga County, Ohio—and then collected details about them and their deaths from local police, medical examiners and people who had been close to the victims. They found that a gun in the home was associated with a nearly threefold increase in the odds that someone would be killed at home by a family member or intimate acquaintance.

BattleCorp

Noveight wrote: »

Arming teachers to help the problem of school shootings honestly sounds like a joke from Airplane or similar.

I'm not a fan of arming teachers but if you were in America, what solution would you have?

I'd be in favour of fencing off schools so that there are only two entrances and having metal detectors and armed guards at each entrance. Probably prohibitively expensive though. And maybe impracticable due to the size and layout of schools and colleges.

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

What statistics exactly?

You needn't worry, we will never have the same gun culture as the US.

These BC, from my previous post detailing the biggest gun studies to date.

a combined analysis of 15 different studies found that people who had access to firearms at home were nearly twice as likely to be murdered as people who did not.

Billy86

Worth putting a pool together for how long it takes until a teacher shoots up their own classroom, or some students in it?

Because we all know it's a matter of when, not if.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

notobtuse wrote: »

Simple... most high school students aren't mature enough for the responsibility.

But that's an afornt to their rights and leaving them defenseless! What kind of heartless soul would send in innocent child into place full of guns - unarmed?!

Billy86

Noveight wrote: »

Arming teachers to help the problem of school shootings honestly sounds like a joke from Airplane or similar.

Its straight out of the Simpsons.

When the teachers start losing it and have a few shooting incidents, they can just arm the students for their own protection. And when students and teachers start shooting at each other too much, they can just drop a bomb on the school with everyone inside, and ensure no more shootings happen there again.

steddyeddy

Billy86 wrote: »

Worth putting a pool together for how long it takes until a teacher shoots up their own classroom, or some students in it?

Because we all know it's a matter of when, not if.

Statistically introducing weapons to an area will likely result in an increase in gun assaults by 680% according to studies. So we shouldn't be waiting long.

steddyeddy

dodderangler wrote: »

So I approve of guns in a teachers hand and you are the one to cry on it.
Trust me I would love to say what I feel about snowflakes like yourself but it’ll only end with me being banned. You know how protected you all are because you’ll only cry if youre not happy with someone giving you their two cents.

Tell me you don't actually own a weapon?

steddyeddy

Billy86 wrote: »

Its straight out of the Simpsons.

When the teachers start losing it and have a few shooting incidents, they can just arm the students for their own protection. And when students and teachers start shooting at each other too much, they can just drop a bomb on the school with everyone inside, and ensure no more shootings happen there again.

Let's say a mass shooting does happen. Will the teachers be under more pressure to act if they're armed? Will an armed teacher that runs to safety be labelled a coward?

RobertKK

When you have a gun problem, the solution is more guns...

Of course this is crazy.

RobertKK

steddyeddy wrote: »

Let's say a mass shooting does happen. Will the teachers be under more pressure to act if they're armed? Will an armed teacher that runs to safety be labelled a coward?

Some of the hired security have been known to hide away from the shooting when in progress.
It's just madness, there is no logic to this.

steddyeddy

RobertKK wrote: »

Some of the hired security have been known to hide away from the shooting when in progress.
It's just madness, there is no logic to this.

When I was in Colorado last time there was a mass shooting (surprising I know) where an armed security man ran from the attacker. He was labelled a coward and even mentioned by Trump who stated he would have run in himself. Are teachers now going to be under the same pressure?

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

What statistics exactly?

You needn't worry, we will never have the same gun culture as the US.

I don't have a problem with Irish gun owners except the ones who were shooting endangered eagles a few years back.

steddyeddy

Studies also show that controlling the weapon of choice also matters. Assault rifle bans reduce deaths in school shootings by 54% it seems. So a good thing right?

The effects of state and Federal gun control laws on school shootings


School shootings are the highest profile type of murder in the United States. They are also the rarest type of murder. In 2014, there were only 17 firearm murders that were perpetrated in schools and colleges. The purpose of the present study is to determine the relationship between school shootings and state and Federal gun control laws. Using a Poisson, two-way fixed effects model, it was found that assault weapons bans reduced the number of school shooting victims by 54.4%.

BattleCorp

steddyeddy wrote: »

You realise that puts you at odds with most NRA members I've met over here.

I did a NRA Range Officer safety course once here in Ireland but I'm not or never have been a member of the NRA nor am I a 100% supporter of them. They do some good stuff, and they also do some really dumb stuff.

steddyeddy wrote: »

Statistically introducing weapons to an area will likely result in an increase in gun assaults by 680% according to studies. So we shouldn't be waiting long.

Ah, statistics. The discipline that proves that the average person has one testicle.

Seriously though, those stats are true for the areas studied in the US, but would they be representative of things in Europe, or in Ireland because we don't seem to have anywhere near the same problems as the US. And parts of the EU have pretty high firearms ownership.

I looked at one of those studies (Gun Ownership as a Risk Factor for Homicide in the Home) and it stated that the use of illicit drugs and a history of physical fights in the home are important risk factors. This leads me back to a point I continually bring up that not everybody should have access to guns.

Billy86

steddyeddy wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

Its straight out of the Simpsons.

When the teachers start losing it and have a few shooting incidents, they can just arm the students for their own protection. And when students and teachers start shooting at each other too much, they can just drop a bomb on the school with everyone inside, and ensure no more shootings happen there again.

Let's say a mass shooting does happen. Will the teachers be under more pressure to act if they're armed? Will an armed teacher that runs to safety be labelled a coward?

I think pressure and reaction falls to the individual, but even if they react brilliantly! I can't see how good can come of it if there are dozens of panicking, sprinting, screaming students between them and the shooter. Especially in age groups where the students have had their growth spurt and may be taller than the teachers.

Even in that situation, it's extremely likely that the teacher would be unable to get a shot off because of this, and if they did they would be very likely to just add to the death toll of innocents.

Which is why just carpet bombing every school in the US first thing next Monday after the bell rings is the best solution for this line of thinking.

BattleCorp

steddyeddy wrote: »

Studies also show that controlling the weapon of choice also matters. Assault rifle bans reduce deaths in school shootings by 54% it seems. So a good thing right?

I'll call shenanigans on that study for one simple reason.

The definition of what is an assault rifle is fcuked up.

For example, California have banned certain models of AR15s (which some class as an assault rifle). Other models of AR15 aren't banned even though they do exactly the same job. They banned them by make rather than function. So a Bushmaster AR15 is banned but a Ruger Mini 14 isn't banned but it can do exactly the same job. Shoot up a school with the Bushmaster and you used an assault rifle. Shoot up a school with the Ruger Mini 14 and you didn't use an assault rifle.

Sh1t like that screws up those studies.

Billy86

Does anyone know what the rules for US police are about shooting into crowds of mostly innocents (e.g. a bank robber surrounded by hostagestrying to get away)?

Because if the directive is "don't shoot into the crowd!" then arming the teachers couldn't be any more pointless (other than to make things more dangerous by the presence of guns) as they are not to shoot at said shooter. Not sure what the rulings on that scenario are though.

BattleCorp

Billy86 wrote: »

Does anyone know what the rules for US police are about shooting into crowds of mostly innocents (e.g. a bank robber surrounded by hostagestrying to get away)?

Because if the directive is "don't shoot into the crowd!" then arming the teachers couldn't be any more pointless (other than to make things more dangerous by the presence of guns) as they are not to shoot at said shooter. Not sure what the rulings on that scenario are though.

I'm against arming the teachers but I can see one scenario where it might be useful. If the teachers are trained to stay in their classroom, hide behind the desk and keep the gun pointed at the door of the classroom so if a gunman tries to enter, the teacher has them in their sights.

But yeah, I can see lots of negatives too.

steddyeddy

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'll call shenanigans on that study for one simple reason.

The definition of what is an assault rifle is fcuked up.

For example, California have banned certain models of AR15s (which some class as an assault rifle). Other models of AR15 aren't banned even though they do exactly the same job. They banned them by make rather than function. So a Bushmaster AR15 is banned but a Ruger Mini 14 isn't banned but it can do exactly the same job. Shoot up a school with the Bushmaster and you used an assault rifle. Shoot up a school with the Ruger Mini 14 and you didn't use an assault rifle.

Sh1t like that screws up those studies.

Fair enough B.

TeaBagMania

maybe a middle of the road solution would be a 12 gauge loaded with rock salt, its a damn good non-lethal attitude adjuster

Manic Moran

jmayo wrote: »

Didn't realise that, although given the screwed up nature of a country that allows a teenager access to very high end military hardware whilst he goes and fights for his country yet not get a drink on his return to the states it shouldn't really surprise me.

Blame MADD. Although I agree with you, it actually did have a positive effect on the drunk driving accident rate. I think there are better ways to desk with the problem, they chose a very blunt solution.

Perhaps oddly, the 21 limit does not apply on military bases. It is actually up to the base Commander's discretion If the drinking age is going to be 18 or 21. However, in today's risk-averse Army, bases are gun free zones and the last base to have an 18 year old limit for drinking raised it a couple of years ago.

I actually like military history and weapons and have had the pleasure of firing a few things, but I don't see why ordinary people should be tooled up to such an extent that it looks like they are off to fight in Afghanistan.

I have fought in Afghanistan. Whatever it may look like, I assure you I would not be there with any of my civilian firearms, the M4 that the Army gave me was far more dangerous even though I wouldn't buy one myself, i also carried a lot more ammunition. (Plus grenades etc). That said, I did attach a personal optic to the Army issue rifle

Speaking of Florida, a number of years ago I was at the gun counter in a Wallmart in a midsize town in the centre of the state.
I and a couple of British guys stared in amazement at a guy that purchased what looked like 3 or 4 hundred rounds of ammo, various calibres.

One of the British guys was ex Royal Marine who commented that you would only be on long patrol/action with that amount of ammo.

I never set foot outside the wire for any length of time without wearing 290 rounds of 5.56 and 60 of 9mm. Plus an additional 210 of 5.56mm easily accessible in my little backpack which had my camelback. My condolences to the RM if his supply situation was such that 400 rounds would be considered excessive.

However, my guess is that he wasn't a civilian or recreational shooter. Enthusiasts tend to shoot a lot more than soldiers do. Case in point, I shot my annual weapons qualification with the army this weekend. The Army gave me a box of 50 rounds of 9 mm, 10 rounds practice and 40 for qualification. After about 3 minutes I had put 38 in the black and as far as the army was concerned I was good for the year. If your only experience is the military, a couple of hundred rounds may seem like a lot however if you actually shoot because you mean it, 400 rounds is a quick day at the range just to knock the rust off.

I don't know if anyone has done research on this, but when did the US start turning towards weapons with big magazines ?
Was it the 70s or 80s

That depends on how you define big. Generally speaking civilian ownership matched more or less what was available for purchase. In the 1920s you can mail order a submachine gun with a 50-round magazine if you wanted and had the money. However, it wasn't until after World War II that semi auto rifles became popular, mainly because semi auto rifles were not introduced to the military until World War II. After World War II, civilians began to own weapons such as the M1 Garand or the M1 carbine. Bearing in mind that cartridges in World War II were larger and more powerful than modern cartridges, your typical magazine capacity was reduced. So, the Garand used an 8 round clip, and the carbine a 15-round magazine. A 30-round was theoretically available for the carbine, but it's a little bit large and unwieldy. Both rifles became extremely popular in the civilian marketplace, partially because people were familiar with them from service anyway, partially because there were a lot of them and they were cheap, and partially because they were well proven to work, they had passed all military reliability and maintenance requirements. In the 1960s the AR-15 become available on the civilian market, with the same 20 round magazine that would later be issued to the military. Similarly, when the civilian version of the M14, the Springfield M1A was made available for civilian sale in the mid-1970s, the standard military issue 20 round magazine came with it. By then, the 30-round AR magazine was also common. Again, the AR rounds being smaller and less powerful than the M1A, the actual bulk of the two magazines were not far different.

Pistol magazines actually lagged behind to a large extent due to the cult of the 1911. This being the service pistol of the army it also was very popular among civilians for the same reasons that the rifles were. However, the 1911 with its large rounds was a single stack pistol and actually carried very few rounds in the magazine. If you were a deviant and you wanted to carry some pansy pistol like a 9 mm, you could get the 12 or 15 round magazines that are common today. As the military moved to 9 mm in the 80s, and also as the 1911 was, blasphemously, redesigned to become a double stack, typical pistols came with larger magazines

TeaBagMania

Thanks MM, nice, well thought out, and logical post

Another note on ammo purchasing. the price of ammo can fluctuate greatly and when you find a deal you need to get it before its gone. hence large purchases

When Odumbass was in office i couldn't find 22LR ammo for the better part of a year, and when that idiot said "gun control" ammo and guns went out of stock instantly everywhere, locally and online
He was the best salesman for guns and ammo

jmayo

dodderangler wrote: »

Oh yeah watch me go out and shoot everyone because some liberals on boards cried at me.
As I said look the stats up yourselves.

Ahh FFS most right thinking people, never mind the so called liberals, think the current US gun ownership situation is lunacy.
Hell because of some of my views I am labelled a nazi around here and yet I would claim the gun laws and gun owning rights in the US are crazy in this day and age.
And I like guns.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'd agree with you here. Not everyone should have access to a gun.

I have a little bit of a problem here. You had the pleasure of firing certain types of guns. You did it safely. Why then do you not want anyone else to fire those types of guns. Surely if a person is safe with one type of gun (one you consider safe), then they are safe with another type (one you consider to be military). Does the type of gun a person owns suddenly make them more likely to run amok with it?

The guns were fired in controlled environment.
In fact some of it was in US.
There is no way that kit would be allowed into private hands in most of the world and especially in this country.
And in this country I do think it is the extreme opposite of US where guns were taken out of legitimate people's hands on the pretence it was tackling gun crime.
You make the point yourself.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I've this problem here in Ireland too. I'm allowed several guns. I'm considered safe. But I'm not allowed a centrefire handgun (even though I own more powerful guns than that). I don't get it. If I'm safe with other guns, why am I considered to be more of a danger to the public with a centrefire gun. Doesn't make sense to me.

You are very sheltered if you think 300 or 400 rounds is a lot. I'd shoot that in a day at the range (depending on the type of shooting I was doing). Most target shooters would buy at least 1000 rounds of centrefire ammo at a time (if they had the money). I usually buy 2000 at a time. Several smallbore shooters could buy 10,000 rounds at a time here in Ireland (again if they had the money, ammo is expensive).

Maybe 300/400 was conservative estimate.
We didn't want to stare too much at guy with that much ammo.
Oh and he did look a bit like extra from deliverance, you know what I mean.
The guy was stacking box upon box on the counter and he said he was "goin huntin".
Now apart from gators, recently some big snakes and the odd black bear not sure what other big dangerous animals are in the wild in Florida.
God help poor old bambi was all we thought.

BattleCorp wrote: »

I would have thought that large capacity magazines were always a thing over there. The large casualty school shootings seem to be a recent enough phenomenon, maybe in the last 20 years.

As far as I can tell people had revolvers, bolt action rifles and shotguns.
Granted bad guys had tommy guns back in the 20s/30, but there wasn't 20/30 rounds magazine guns as much in private ownership.
Hell the cops only had revolvers until 80s AFAIK.
Going postal only became a thing in the mid 80s.

BattleCorp wrote: »

Sorry if I'm insulting Americans here but it looks like it isn't the guns. It's the mental illness or the resorting to violence for every perceived slight/insult given.

The even weirder thing is how the gun lobby (especially Republicans) are against such common sense things as tighter control of high capacity magazines, creating a federal database to track gun sales, banning assault style weapons, background checks for private sales and gun show sales, and for things like shortening waiting period for buying guns, allowing teachers to carry guns, allowing concealed carry without a permit.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

dodderangler wrote: »

As I said. Look it up. Look at the videos. YouTube. Google.
I’m not your feckin mother holding your hand princess.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

kowloon

jmayo wrote: »

Speaking of Florida, a number of years ago I was at the gun counter in a Wallmart in a midsize town in the centre of the state.
I and a couple of British guys stared in amazement at a guy that purchased what looked like 3 or 4 hundred rounds of ammo, various calibres.

That's not unusual, even if you're a light shooter the stuff isn't going to go out of date any time soon, you may as well stock up and avoid extra trips to the shop.

BattleCorp

jmayo wrote: »

The guns were fired in controlled environment.
In fact some of it was in US.
There is no way that kit would be allowed into private hands in most of the world and especially in this country.

What type of guns did you fire over there? I'm assuming fully auto rifles or are you talking about AR15s?

The even weirder thing is how the gun lobby (especially Republicans) are against such common sense things as tighter control of high capacity magazines, creating a federal database to track gun sales, banning assault style weapons, background checks for private sales and gun show sales, and for things like shortening waiting period for buying guns, allowing teachers to carry guns, allowing concealed carry without a permit.

The gun lobby don't want to give an inch because then the authorities will come back for another inch, and another. We can see that happening here in Ireland and the UK. Every few years the authorities come back looking to take away something else from us, which is unfair and does feckall to tackle gun crime because the problem here in Ireland is unlicensed guns in the hands of scumbags and not licensed guns in the hands of law abiding citizens.