"right" to guns...get used to massacres

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

nuts who somehow got fucked over will want everyone to know their pain
;-(

[Andrew Swallow]

On 15/12/2012 19:32, David E. Powell wrote:
> These don't seem to happen as much in Israel or Switzerland where just about everyone is packing.
>
> That being the other side of the argument.
>
> We may have to do what Israel did after Ma'alot and have armed guards or staff members though that will be a sad day it probably would save lives.
>
> The Secret Service did a study of these attacks a while back, after Columbine, the massacre types tend to kill themselves when they see an armed response coming. (Some surrender, like the Aurora movie theater killer. Few seem to resist an armed response. Cowards are like that.) There are cases of htese attacks being stopped by police, guards, or even school staff in at least one case where a teacher got a lever action rifle from his car and held the suspect at gunpoint, stopping the spree immediately.
>
> In the case of this killer he apparently killed himself when he saw police coming to the School.
>
> One detail was a rifle had apparently been left in the car he'd stolen (Along with the guns, probably from his then-dead mother, a real scumbag here.) Had he come to the door with a rifle he would never have been "buzzed in." He had to get in to start killing.
>
> Sadly, the Israeli way will probably be the only way to go, it the real world.
>

Some thoughts.

Several of these massacres appear to happen at schools and universities.
They are normally performed by a single individual. Schools could be
equipped with two gun cabinets in different rooms - that way a staff
member can always get hold of a weapon. Teachers and other school
employees to be trained members of the militia.

Separate secure cupboards for guns and ammunition. Reduces accidents
and makes it harder for the bad guys. Guns only need loading when you
are going to fire them.

Hunting. You do not need a machine gun to kill a deer or a duck.
Restrict the weapons to two bullets or shotgun cartridges as a time.

Fun shooting. Use flint locks with gun powder. Normal proficiency 3
rounds a minute. Impress your friends by achieving 4 rounds a minute.

Mugging and car jacking. To get your wallet or car keys a mugger has to
come within arms length. To defend against mugging your weapon has to
be on you. A rife is too big. A short range weapon with 2 or 3 bullets
is sufficient.

Home protection. This needs further thought. Who are you defending
your home from? In the case of bad guys it is the police.
Weapons can be locked away with guns and ammunition in separate
cabinets. Inside the building short range weapons. Against a target in
the garden medium range is probably appropriate - it is rare for
anything over a 100 yards to be a genuine threat.

Militia. Some out of the box thinking. The default militia weapon
should be the water pistol. All US adults should be required to have a
water pistol. This is suitable for training children in the correct
methods to care for and handle weapons, whilst preventing them from
hurting themselves.

A certification system for weapons needs devising. It would be a
breach of discipline to use a weapon without the appropriate
certification except under supervision. Congress has a Constitutional
power to write a discipline for the militias. On conviction for a
felony a man's certificates can be cancelled, so he can only use and
bear a water pistol.

To fight invasion weapons able to kill soldiers are needed. As
terrorists have discovered by trial and error modern soldiers wear
armour so the modern militia fighting weapon will have to be some type
of rocket propelled grenade launcher. Carrying a loaded launcher when
off duty should be a major breach of discipline.

Military. Lots of different weapons when on duty. To be stored
securely. Off duty - armed in a similar way to civilians.

100 years. There are lots of weapons in the USA but most ones used to
commit murder are less than a 100 years old. The people have a
constitutional right to bear arms, they do not have a right to inherit
weapons. When a man dies his weapons should be formally destroyed. His
son can go to the gun shop and get his own weapons registered to him.

Delay between the massacre and the writing of new laws means that the
laws lose their urgency. Unfortunately there will be future massacres
in the USA. By drafting the new regulations now Congress can react
rapidly to the next massacre by passing the new laws.

Andrew Swallow

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

David E. Powell wrote:

> These don't seem to happen as much in Israel or Switzerland where
> just about everyone is packing.

In Israel the mentally disturbed can charge into battle if they
desire suicide. And daily war stories are the big stories.

No, you liar, in Switzerland not "just about everyone" is packing, their
guns are very tightly controlled...I advocate such control...do you?

Yeah, you can always find some anomaly to back up your gun goofball theories,
but common sense, U.S. gun statistics, and daily newspapers *prove* you a goofball.
;-)

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

IMHO, assuming we actually do something, it will take perhaps 50
years before we get the guns under control.
;-)

[jonathan]

"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
news:fL-dnRaEFrJC9VDN...@supernews.com...

> IMHO, assuming we actually do something, it will take perhaps 50
> years before we get the guns under control.

I think that's true when it comes to criminals, they'll
always find a way to get a hold of a gun, especially
a handgun. But these mass shootings seem to involve
people that were normally considered law abiding
but then lost their minds.

So gun control, say banning assault rifles, could be
effective in making it harder for these type of
murderers to get assault rifles.






> ;-)

[Keith W]

Its too late for gun control in the USA, apart from
the political impossibility of enacting effective laws
there are 300 million guns already in circulation.

Mass shootings are the price Americans pay for their
love affair with firearms. I hope they think its worth it.

Keith

[Moramarth]

On 16 Dec, 05:52, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
> David E. Powell wrote:
> > These don't seem to happen as much in Israel or Switzerland where
> >  just about everyone is packing.

> No, you liar, in Switzerland not "just about everyone" is packing, their
> guns are very tightly controlled...

Please describe these controls for our benefit, and cite sources other
than your imagination...

[Keith W]

Most able bodied Swiss males are required to be part of the militia.
As such they are issued with a Sig 550 rifle for enlisted personnel
and/or the 9mm SIG-Sauer P220 semi-automatic pistol for officers,
medical and postal personnel). These weapons are to be kept at home
in a secure cabinet. Prior to October 2007 they were also required to
keep 50 rounds of ammunition in a package that was sealed and
inspected regularly. Since 2007 that home store has been withdrawn.

The government subsidizes the sale of ammunition for these weapons
at authorized ranges and ammunition bought is not permitted to be
taken outside the range.

The carrying of all other guns is heavily controlled with a special
permit being needed (Waffentragschein) that is normally only
issued to private citizens if they are properly trained and vetted
security guards.

Sales of guns requires a weapons acquisition permit, this did not
apply previously to private sales but that loophole has now
been closed.

So in that sense Mr Powell is correct since the widespread
'possession' of assault weapons is often used by the gun
lobby as 'proof' that weapons control is unnecessary.

However there is another side to the story.

Single shot hunting weapons are widely available and the Swiss
are enthusiastic about hunting with modern and antique weapons firing
black powder or modern substitutes.

Rifle and pistol shooting are very popular with ranges being
available in most areas and they host the largest annual
rifle shooting competition in the world which has up to
200,000 entrants.

So there is an active gun culture in Switzerland but it
is in the form of field hunting and target shooting rather
than possession of semi-automatic hand guns and rifles in
urban centres. Most Swiss regard the idea of carrying guns
for personal protection as rather eccentric.

Switzerland is also wealthy and sparsely populated with
low levels of crime in general. The bottom line is that the
most common form of death by firearm is suicide not homicide.

Keith

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Son, you can easily look it up for your ignorant (stupid really) self.

It is illegal for the Swiss to carry their weapons in public, except
to go *directly* to or from a military installation (no side-trip errands).

They have *no* ammo at home for their guns...ammo is issued *only*
at either military installations or at shooting ranges and it is
illegal to take ammo home.

"Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and
other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep
their military ammunition at home. The rest of the militia can
only get their ammunition from their military armory in the
event of an emergency."

You look up the info yourself, you ignorant gun goofball jackass.
;-)

[peter skelton]

"Moramarth" wrote in message
news:c010c71b-d350-4129...@f19g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

Wiki has it about right, if you want the exact text of the
regulations set your google to French or German only and you
will find them. Be careful that you do not get pre-2008
references, they changed the law then to harmonize with the
EU.

David was incorrect

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Keith W wrote:

> jonathan wrote:
>
>>"Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <dr...@coldine.edu> wrote in message
>>news:fL-dnRaEFrJC9VDN...@supernews.com...
>>
>>
>>>IMHO, assuming we actually do something, it will take perhaps 50
>>>years before we get the guns under control.
>>
>>I think that's true when it comes to criminals, they'll
>>always find a way to get a hold of a gun, especially
>>a handgun. But these mass shootings seem to involve
>>people that were normally considered law abiding
>>but then lost their minds.
>>
>>So gun control, say banning assault rifles, could be
>>effective in making it harder for these type of
>>murderers to get assault rifles.
>>
>
>
> Its too late for gun control in the USA,

Nonsense.

> apart from
> the political impossibility of enacting effective laws
> there are 300 million guns already in circulation.

With good laws it will take maybe 50 years to get those
guns out of circulation.

It is not an impossible task.
;-)

[Andrew Swallow]

It may take 50 to 100 years to bring guns under control but it can be done.

Andrew Swallow

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 06:17:38 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
<dr...@coldine.edu> wrote:

>> apart from
>> the political impossibility of enacting effective laws
>> there are 300 million guns already in circulation.
>
>With good laws it will take maybe 50 years to get those
>guns out of circulation.
>
>It is not an impossible task.
>;-)

How long do you think it is going to take you to repeal the 2nd
amendment? Try to collect up these guns, even over 50 years, without
doing that first, and you'll get my gun 220 grains and 3000 ft/sec at
a time.

[Halmyre]

On Dec 16, 3:33 pm, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 06:17:38 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
>

> <d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
> >>  apart from
> >> the political impossibility of enacting effective laws
> >> there are 300 million guns already in circulation.
>
> >With good laws it will take maybe 50 years to get those
> >guns out of circulation.
>
> >It is not an impossible task.
> >;-)
>
> How long do you think it is going to take you to repeal the 2nd
> amendment?  Try to collect up these guns, even over 50 years, without
> doing that first, and you'll get my gun 220 grains and 3000 ft/sec at
> a time.

Are you sure your first name isn't Dick?

--
Halmyre

[Moramarth]

On 16 Dec, 14:03, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
> Moramarth wrote:
> > On 16 Dec, 05:52, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>
> >>David E. Powell wrote:
>
> >>>These don't seem to happen as much in Israel or Switzerland where
> >>> just about everyone is packing.
>
> >>No, you liar, in Switzerland not "just about everyone" is packing, their
> >>guns are very tightly controlled...
>
> > Please describe these controls for our benefit, and cite sources other
> > than your imagination...
>
> Son, you can easily look it up for your ignorant (stupid really) self.

O.K., I was living in the past - regulations have changed since 4 or 5
years ago, but back then there was little violent gun crime and pretty
much anything went with regards to weapon ownership.

>
> It is illegal for the Swiss to carry their weapons in public, except
> to go *directly* to or from a military installation (no side-trip errands).

No - unconcealed carry of private firearms (including those not
requiring a license) is legal under most circumstances (it may require
a permit) - check the regulations...

>
> They have *no* ammo at home for their guns...ammo is issued *only*
> at either military installations or at shooting ranges and it is
> illegal to take ammo home.
> "Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and
> other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep
> their military ammunition at home. The rest of the militia can
> only get their ammunition from their military armory in the
> event of an emergency."

Except you can have a private weapon in the same caliber in the house
and an uncontrolled private ammo supply - bolt action rifles using
military ammunition (but not pump or lever actions) still don't need
any sort of license. Also remember on completion of service a member
of the military is entitled to retain his equipment including issue
weapons. In the case of an assault rifle this will by converted to
semi-automatic at state expense and a license must be obtained.

>
> You look up the info yourself, you ignorant gun goofball jackass.

I just did - pity you can't understand the rules.
> ;-)

[David E. Powell]

On Dec 16, 10:33 am, Dave Head <rally...@att.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 06:17:38 -0800, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D."
>

> <d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
> >>  apart from
> >> the political impossibility of enacting effective laws
> >> there are 300 million guns already in circulation.
>
> >With good laws it will take maybe 50 years to get those
> >guns out of circulation.
>
> >It is not an impossible task.
> >;-)
>
> How long do you think it is going to take you to repeal the 2nd
> amendment?  Try to collect up these guns, even over 50 years, without
> doing that first, and you'll get my gun 220 grains and 3000 ft/sec at
> a time.

It isn't about preventing crime with the hard core anti gunners. The
laws they propose don't do it or Detroit, Washington D.C. and Chicago
would be paradises on earth as far as crime statistics.

The thing is we have to live in the real world. Improving security is
what is needed. For all the sound and fury guns will not disappear in
the US. In fact, the last few years have been the most frenetic time
for gun buying that I have ever seen. I cannot recall seeing a store
with full shelves or racks since about October of 2008. This November
was the sparsest I had seen. Between the economy, and worries about
changes to laws, and the flooding of new people into the market for
those reasons the demand has been off the charts. Way more that even
in the 1990s when people were worried about new gun laws going into
effect (Ironically, many "banned" weapons and magazines weer still
available out there, they were just priced sky high by people who
cashed in on the worries.) Then there was the run up to the whole Y2K
thing. However nothing compares to today. The economic worries are a
big part of it, and also many women are getting into shooting.
Especially working women and professional women who are single in
their 20s, 30s, 40s etc. more than in years past, percentage wise.

So given these demographic shifts and the numbers out there, a total
ban on guns in the USA is not going to happen in my opinion. Not just
as a pro gunner type, or any of that, just dealing in reality. Add the
numbers already in circulation and in private hands, plus the fact
that smuggling guns would probably be about as easy as smuggling
drugs, and there you go. Getting them from criminal hands would be far
harder than disarming the every day folks.

So then what you have left is improving security, and that's where the
changes need to be made.

David

[David E. Powell]

For the "Prof."

Of course, were a Swiss person to break the law (shocking) and get
some ammunition they could then be in possession of a battle rifle and
ammo, with all the capabilities that combination has by default.

They tend not to do this. They have training, and also apparently the
sense of citizenship and self control not to do bad stuff with their
gear.

Criminals don't obey laws.

As for Keith, the explanation is excellent, I do know of the shooting
matches, including at least one "mountainside to mountainside" long
range match they have in the country. Thanks for the clarification.

I think this last quote from Keith was also quite important:

"Switzerland is also wealthy and sparsely populated with
low levels of crime in general. The bottom line is that the
most common form of death by firearm is suicide not homicide."

The U.S. has socioeconomic issues some other places do not, and given
the "fad" nature the sort of evil seen recently has taken among some
real ne'er do wells, sadly security will probably have to change to
reflect that.

Maybe it will get like banks used to be when they had guards, as a
backup to the "buzz in" locked door system many schools have in place
now. (I am surmising the reason why this killer left a rifle in the
car they stole is that they knew if they carried a rifle they could
never bluff their way in past the camera and electric door lock system
the school had. If they could not get in, they could not kill. Maybe
an armed security person or persons are required in addition to that
locking system as a fail safe.) Make the target not as "soft" and you
won't get the parasites who target them for that reason.

[peter skelton]

"Keith W" wrote in message
news:1Pjzs.736201$9H4....@fx17.am4...

<sensible stuff gone>

>Switzerland is also wealthy and sparsely populated with
low levels of crime in general. The bottom line is that the
most common form of death by firearm is suicide not
homicide.

Picking at a nit. Switzerland is around 190 people per km2
which, given the nature of the countryside, makes it rather
densely populated where people live. Even not allowing for
the mountains, it's in the middle of the pack for population
density, somewhere in the 60's out of 250 or so countries.

One thing in Switzerland's favour is that it has a
well-controlled migrant population about 20% of the total
which has to leave if it is not working, & won't be invited
back if it misbehaves. (If the US could deport its bottom
20% when it was out of work and prevent it coming back if it
had a bad record, would it reduce crime?)

THe more I learn about gun control and crime, the more I
come to believe that gun rules are pretty much irrelevant to
crime rates in prosperous societies. Other factors dominate.

[David E. Powell]

On Dec 16, 3:12 pm, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> On 16 Dec, 14:03, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote:> Moramarth wrote:
> > > On 16 Dec, 05:52, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>
> > >>David E. Powell wrote:
>
> > >>>These don't seem to happen as much in Israel or Switzerland where
> > >>> just about everyone is packing.
>
> > >>No, you liar, in Switzerland not "just about everyone" is packing, their
> > >>guns are very tightly controlled...
>
> > > Please describe these controls for our benefit, and cite sources other
> > > than your imagination...
>
> > Son, you can easily look it up for your ignorant (stupid really) self.
>
> O.K., I was living in the past - regulations have changed since 4 or 5
> years ago, but back then there was little violent gun crime and pretty
> much anything went with regards to weapon ownership.

+1 to this, I remember hearing one older fellow had a fully
operational Bofors 40mm AA gun in his backyard.

Not all the Swiss liked the change, there were apparently quite a bit
of protests when it was done.

> > It is illegal for the Swiss to carry their weapons in public, except
> > to go *directly* to or from a military installation (no side-trip errands).
>
> No - unconcealed carry of private firearms (including those not
> requiring a license) is legal under most circumstances (it may require
> a permit) - check the regulations...
>
> > They have *no* ammo at home for their guns...ammo is issued *only*
> > at either military installations or at shooting ranges and it is
> > illegal to take ammo home.
> > "Only 2,000 specialist militia members (who protect airports and
> > other sites of particular sensitivity) are permitted to keep
> > their military ammunition at home. The rest of the militia can
> > only get their ammunition from their military armory in the
> > event of an emergency."
>
> Except you can have a private weapon in the same caliber in the house
> and an uncontrolled private ammo supply - bolt action rifles using
> military ammunition (but not pump or lever actions) still don't need
> any sort of license.

There are quite a few bolt actions in the 7.5 Swiss caliber IIRC. Much
like the number of bolt action guns available in .223 Remington, 7.62
NATO or even 7.62 x 39mm in the US. (Ammunition in service calibers
tends to be available cheaper than some others for practice due to the
massive amounts made in those calibers, and the availability of rounds
in those calibers is often good. Hence many rifles adopting them.)

Also remember on completion of service a member
> of the military is entitled to retain his equipment including issue
> weapons.  In the case of an assault rifle this will by converted to
> semi-automatic at state expense and a license must be obtained.
>
> > You look up the info yourself, you ignorant gun goofball jackass.
>
> I just did - pity you can't understand the rules.

Looking at what Keith wrote, as they say, more than one side to it.
(Seems to be the way in the US too.)

They may not be as unrestricted as they once were, but guns of several
varieties are still quite common in the land of William Tell, Rube
Goldberg Pocketknives and fine Chocolates. A lot of the variables come
down to "mindset" or dare I say "National Psyche."

Methods to increase security in any area must reflect that local
climate. The average Swiss kid who target shoots with a .22 is as
unlikely to consider pointing a weapon at a fellow human being as the
average American kid in the 1930s, 40s or 50s who target shot with a .
22 was. The problems are dealing with here today in the US are the
warning signs, and dealing with the "fad" nature that the mass attack
has sadly taken on among the scumbags who do it, and applying lessons
to make the chosen targets harder for the would-be mass killer. In a
situation where the attacker is armed, it tends to be the presence of
arms in other hands which stops them.

For instance, a story has come out about a masked whacko who entered a
U.S. Mall a couple days back, targeting shoppers. He killed a couple
people, then himself. It is possible that him seeing an armed response
approaching caused him to stoop his spree and kill himself, validating
the quick response doctrine.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

<http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-
shooter-183593571.html>

DEP

[David E. Powell]

This may be the post in this thread that I most agree with.

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

NO. Teachers are for teaching, what you do is hire retired cops/military
with firearms experience.

> Separate secure cupboards for guns and ammunition. Reduces accidents
> and makes it harder for the bad guys. Guns only need loading when you
> are going to fire them.

You need the firearms present where the incident is about to begin.
This guy shot his way in, waht good is a gun elsewhere when you need it
"right-right then" ?

> Hunting. You do not need a machine gun to kill a deer or a duck.
> Restrict the weapons to two bullets or shotgun cartridges as a time.

One sounds good to me, unless of course, it's a double-barreled weapon, hey
wait they've already done that haven't they ?

> Fun shooting. Use flint locks with gun powder. Normal proficiency 3
> rounds a minute. Impress your friends by achieving 4 rounds a minute.

So far, so good.

> Mugging and car jacking. To get your wallet or car keys a mugger has
> to come within arms length. To defend against mugging your weapon
> has to be on you. A rife is too big. A short range weapon with 2 or
> 3 bullets is sufficient.

Andrew there are and were flinlock pistols.....NEXT !

> Home protection. This needs further thought. Who are you defending
> your home from? In the case of bad guys it is the police.
> Weapons can be locked away with guns and ammunition in separate
> cabinets. Inside the building short range weapons. Against a target
> in the garden medium range is probably appropriate - it is rare for
> anything over a 100 yards to be a genuine threat.

OK, so add a bayonet option to your flintlock.....NEXT !

> Militia. Some out of the box thinking. The default militia weapon
> should be the water pistol. All US adults should be required to have
> a water pistol. This is suitable for training children in the correct
> methods to care for and handle weapons, whilst preventing them from
> hurting themselves.

That is not out of the box thinking, Andrew, that is just plain
stupidity....NEXT !

> A certification system for weapons needs devising. It would be a
> breach of discipline to use a weapon without the appropriate
> certification except under supervision. Congress has a Constitutional
> power to write a discipline for the militias. On conviction for a
> felony a man's certificates can be cancelled, so he can only use and
> bear a water pistol.

How about if Washington issues laws, good for all 50 States, One size fits
all.
*Fuck States rights !*

> To fight invasion weapons able to kill soldiers are needed. As
> terrorists have discovered by trial and error modern soldiers wear
> armour so the modern militia fighting weapon will have to be some type
> of rocket propelled grenade launcher. Carrying a loaded launcher when
> off duty should be a major breach of discipline.

Huh ? What kind of black-powder launcher are you talking about here Andrew,
a cannon ?

> Military. Lots of different weapons when on duty. To be stored
> securely. Off duty - armed in a similar way to civilians.

If it's black-powder, over the mantlepiece will suffice. Hey, it worked
before.

> 100 years. There are lots of weapons in the USA but most ones used to
> commit murder are less than a 100 years old. The people have a
> constitutional right to bear arms, they do not have a right to inherit
> weapons. When a man dies his weapons should be formally destroyed. His
> son can go to the gun shop and get his own weapons registered to
> him.

If you're merely trying to create work for gunsmiths, OK, if not why destroy
them if they are in good working condition ?

> Delay between the massacre and the writing of new laws means that the
> laws lose their urgency. Unfortunately there will be future massacres
> in the USA. By drafting the new regulations now Congress can react
> rapidly to the next massacre by passing the new laws.

Agreed. Now IS the time to act, beware those that try to delay affirmative
action !

cheers....Jeff

> Andrew Swallow

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

He had a rifle with him David, it's what he used to gain entry tol the
school and it was the weapon used for every murder he commited.

cheers....Jeff

[Dave Head]

Teachers deserve protection. If you're not going to hire armed guards
when you tell them that they can't bring along their personal defense
weapons, then its time to tell them they CAN bring along their
personal defense weapons. Morally, I equate depriving someone of the
means of self defense, and then not protecting them, is the equivalent
of at neglegent homicide if they come to harm because of it.

>
>> Separate secure cupboards for guns and ammunition. Reduces accidents
>> and makes it harder for the bad guys. Guns only need loading when you
>> are going to fire them.
>
>You need the firearms present where the incident is about to begin.
>This guy shot his way in, waht good is a gun elsewhere when you need it
>"right-right then" ?

Exactly. Teachers / administrators / janitors / anyone else that is
normally there, and has a CCW, should be allowed to have their weapon
ON THEM (that means NOT in a purse, and NOT in the car, and NOT
otherwise laying around, but ON THEM where the bad guys don't know for
sure who is packing and where the kids cannot "find" a weapon in a
purse / car / etc.

>
>> Hunting. You do not need a machine gun to kill a deer or a duck.
>> Restrict the weapons to two bullets or shotgun cartridges as a time.
>
>One sounds good to me, unless of course, it's a double-barreled weapon, hey
>wait they've already done that haven't they ?

I want to see how bad you mess your pants when you have a big moose or
grizzly charging at you and you have 1 shot... and miss...

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> writes:

> On 15/12/2012 19:32, David E. Powell wrote:
> > These don't seem to happen as much in Israel or Switzerland where just about everyone is packing.

/../

> Mugging and car jacking. To get your wallet or car keys a mugger has
> to come within arms length. To defend against mugging your weapon has
> to be on you. A rife is too big. A short range weapon with 2 or 3
> bullets is sufficient.

LOL

--
Gernot Hassenpflug
Aunkai

[Gernot Hassenpflug]

+1
At last, some sense!
Reference: if you can control the framework of the narrative, you win.
--
Gernot Hassenpflug
Aunkai

[Vaughn]

On 12/16/2012 7:58 PM, Dave Head wrote:
> Exactly. Teachers / administrators / janitors / anyone else that is
> normally there, and has a CCW, should be allowed to have their weapon
> ON THEM (that means NOT in a purse, and NOT in the car, and NOT
> otherwise laying around, but ON THEM where the bad guys don't know for
> sure who is packing and where the kids cannot "find" a weapon in a
> purse / car / etc.

Insanity! Insanity for more reasons than I care to mention. The answer
to our gun problem is NOT more guns.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

Powell flat out lied ("nearly everyone in Switzerland is packing") and
got caught. In addition to good gun control laws in Switzerland,
the *culture* is very different from U.S.

Fix the problem: easy access to guns capable of easy mass killing.

Make access *difficult*.

[Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D.]

David E. Powell wrote:

> On Dec 16, 3:12 pm, Moramarth <Morama...@moramarth.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 16 Dec, 14:03, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote:> Moramarth wrote:
>>
>>>>On 16 Dec, 05:52, "Dr. Vincent Quin, Ph.D." <d...@coldine.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>>David E. Powell wrote:
>>
>>>>>>These don't seem to happen as much in Israel or Switzerland where
>>>>>>just about everyone is packing.
>>
>>>>>No, you liar, in Switzerland not "just about everyone" is packing, their
>>>>>guns are very tightly controlled...
>>
>>>>Please describe these controls for our benefit, and cite sources other
>>>>than your imagination...
>>
>>>Son, you can easily look it up for your ignorant (stupid really) self.
>>
>>O.K., I was living in the past - regulations have changed since 4 or 5
>>years ago, but back then there was little violent gun crime and pretty
>>much anything went with regards to weapon ownership.

No, jackass, the Swiss still had very tight controls on guns and ammo back
then. Since then the Swiss have *tightened* their gun control...smart!

You lying gun goofballs need a different "example".
;-)

[Andrew Swallow]

On 16/12/2012 21:24, peter skelton wrote:
> "Keith W" wrote in message news:1Pjzs.736201$9H4....@fx17.am4...
>
> <sensible stuff gone>
>
>> Switzerland is also wealthy and sparsely populated with
> low levels of crime in general. The bottom line is that the
> most common form of death by firearm is suicide not homicide.
>
>
> Picking at a nit. Switzerland is around 190 people per km2 which, given
> the nature of the countryside, makes it rather densely populated where
> people live. Even not allowing for the mountains, it's in the middle of
> the pack for population density, somewhere in the 60's out of 250 or so
> countries.
>
> One thing in Switzerland's favour is that it has a well-controlled
> migrant population about 20% of the total which has to leave if it is
> not working, & won't be invited back if it misbehaves. (If the US could
> deport its bottom 20% when it was out of work and prevent it coming back
> if it had a bad record, would it reduce crime?)
>

Only if most US crooks are Latinos.

[Daryl]

It's called Natural Culling of a Species.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrdXcpnKsgQ when you just need one
shot.

Daryl

--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Andrew Swallow]

Oh yes. The rest of the bullets are unnecessary weight. They have guns
too, so you cannot fight more than a couple of people.

Andrew Swallow

[Steve Hix]

In article <kam0as$6um$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Vaughn <vaugh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Frankly, the problem is not guns, it's violent behavior. But that isn't as much
fun to rail against.

- Criminals already have as many weapons as they want, illegally. Making new
laws isn't going to affect them at all.

- Making new laws to take guns away from the law-abiding isn't going to help,
since they're not the problem anyway. Victim-disarmament advocates can't seem to
get this through their heads.

- Victim-disarmament enthusiasts can't seem to remember history. Consider how
well Prohibition and the current War on (some) Drugs is working out.

Forgive us our skepticism.

[Steve Hix]

In article <hdidnQW9N-OTC1PN...@bt.com>,

Forget about the guns. They have clubs and cudgels and boots and rocks and fists
and frozen salmon and knives and Luigi and Nunzio... Guns are just frosting on
the cake, as it were.

[Andrew Swallow]

Big universities can do that. Small schools with only 2 or 3 teachers
cannot afford a security guard.

>> Separate secure cupboards for guns and ammunition. Reduces accidents
>> and makes it harder for the bad guys. Guns only need loading when you
>> are going to fire them.
>
> You need the firearms present where the incident is about to begin.
> This guy shot his way in, waht good is a gun elsewhere when you need it
> "right-right then" ?
>

Basic safety, you do not leave loaded guns lying around for children to
pick up and play with. That means a locked gun cabinet. The second
cabinet permits the staff to get a gun whilst being in a different room
from the gunman.

>> Hunting. You do not need a machine gun to kill a deer or a duck.
>> Restrict the weapons to two bullets or shotgun cartridges as a time.
>
> One sounds good to me, unless of course, it's a double-barreled weapon, hey
> wait they've already done that haven't they ?
>

Good, then that is easy to do.

>> Fun shooting. Use flint locks with gun powder. Normal proficiency 3
>> rounds a minute. Impress your friends by achieving 4 rounds a minute.
>
> So far, so good.
>
>> Mugging and car jacking. To get your wallet or car keys a mugger has
>> to come within arms length. To defend against mugging your weapon
>> has to be on you. A rife is too big. A short range weapon with 2 or
>> 3 bullets is sufficient.
>
> Andrew there are and were flinlock pistols.....NEXT !
>

I suspect that modern adverts for flintlock pistols do not say anything
about personnel protection. Although that could change.

People may prefer to carry pistols with room for 3 bullets.

>> Home protection. This needs further thought. Who are you defending
>> your home from? In the case of bad guys it is the police.
>> Weapons can be locked away with guns and ammunition in separate
>> cabinets. Inside the building short range weapons. Against a target
>> in the garden medium range is probably appropriate - it is rare for
>> anything over a 100 yards to be a genuine threat.
>
> OK, so add a bayonet option to your flintlock.....NEXT !
>
>> Militia. Some out of the box thinking. The default militia weapon
>> should be the water pistol. All US adults should be required to have
>> a water pistol. This is suitable for training children in the correct
>> methods to care for and handle weapons, whilst preventing them from
>> hurting themselves.
>
> That is not out of the box thinking, Andrew, that is just plain
> stupidity....NEXT !
>

It is fun not stupid. It is actually the important one.

First it is how you train 3 years children how to handle and care for guns.
Second it is how we limit the fire power of madmen and crooks.

>> A certification system for weapons needs devising. It would be a
>> breach of discipline to use a weapon without the appropriate
>> certification except under supervision. Congress has a Constitutional
>> power to write a discipline for the militias. On conviction for a
>> felony a man's certificates can be cancelled, so he can only use and
>> bear a water pistol.
>
> How about if Washington issues laws, good for all 50 States, One size fits
> all.
> *Fuck States rights !*

State rights. States appoint Militia officers. Congress writes the
Militia rules. Anything else change the US Constitution.

>
>> To fight invasion weapons able to kill soldiers are needed. As
>> terrorists have discovered by trial and error modern soldiers wear
>> armour so the modern militia fighting weapon will have to be some type
>> of rocket propelled grenade launcher. Carrying a loaded launcher when
>> off duty should be a major breach of discipline.
>
> Huh ? What kind of black-powder launcher are you talking about here Andrew,
> a cannon ?
>

Real weapons. This is for war. The days when the primary infantry war
weapon is the rife are passing.

RPG are a bit clumsy for muggings - passing policemen notice them. The
Militia could keep its grenade launchers in the armoury at the local base.

>> Military. Lots of different weapons when on duty. To be stored
>> securely. Off duty - armed in a similar way to civilians.
>
> If it's black-powder, over the mantlepiece will suffice. Hey, it worked
> before.
>

Bring it up to date - over the radiator. ;)

>> 100 years. There are lots of weapons in the USA but most ones used to
>> commit murder are less than a 100 years old. The people have a
>> constitutional right to bear arms, they do not have a right to inherit
>> weapons. When a man dies his weapons should be formally destroyed. His
>> son can go to the gun shop and get his own weapons registered to
>> him.
>
> If you're merely trying to create work for gunsmiths, OK, if not why destroy
> them if they are in good working condition ?
>

To get this sort of rule passed having gunsmiths and gun shops as allies
helps.

If honest Americans are going back to flintlocks and single/three shot
pistols then they will want other gun types destroying. (The Army will
not want large amounts of out of date weapons that use incompatible
ammunition.)

There are too many gun nuts who will keep up their guns until their
dying breath. OK. We will wait until they are dead.

[Vaughn]

On 12/16/2012 11:06 PM, Steve Hix wrote:
> Frankly, the problem is not guns,

I agree! And the solution isn't "more guns" either.

> it's violent behavior. But that isn't as much
> fun to rail against.

I can! A couple decades ago the USA shut down the majority of its
publicly funded mental institutions in favor of handing the inmates
drugs and turning them out into the streets without supervision. In
general, they must commit a crime to get treatment.

Today, there are few public alternatives for these people to turn to.
Those that are lucky enough to have medical coverage find that the
coverage for mental illness is highly restricted. We are seeing the
results.

[Dave Head]

On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 21:33:49 -0500, Vaughn <vaugh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Oh yeah? Then why do so many people suggest we ought to have armed
guards at the schools? That is just "more guns."

The answer to this _is_ more guns, and having the adults present have
the OPTION to carry concealed _is_ the answer. As I understand it,
the Aurora theater shooter had a choice of quite a few theaters in the
area showing Batman and within a short drive, but this Cinemark was
the ONLY one that had a sign prohibiting guns - so he was assured
nobody could shoot back. And, as I heard it in internet conversation,
and supposedly suppressed by the liberal news media, the recent Oregon
mall shooter was stopped by a private citizen with a CCW and his
private weapon.

These mass shootings, the ones that rack up a huge number of dead,
most often occur in places where some pinhead(s) have banned law
abiding citizens from carrying weapons. This happens too often to be
coincidence. Virginia Tech - had there been students and professors
there that were carrying, that could have been stopped very quickly -
had there been this one fellow I know, in college now, and an
ex-Army-Ranger in the 1st classroom this guy started shooting, he
wouldn't have gotten off a 2nd shot, 'cuz this guy is absolutely
deadly, and doesn't miss.

[Steve Hix]

In article <kan48c$pc5$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Vaughn <vaugh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 12/16/2012 11:06 PM, Steve Hix wrote:
> > Frankly, the problem is not guns,
>
> I agree! And the solution isn't "more guns" either.

Certainly not for all aspects of the problem, but then common "solutions" going
for "fewer guns!" aren't either. There's a lot of barking up the wrong tree
going on because root causes are either difficult to manage, or distasteful to
admit they exist and are root causes.

> > it's violent behavior. But that isn't as much
> > fun to rail against.
>
> I can! A couple decades ago the USA shut down the majority of its
> publicly funded mental institutions in favor of handing the inmates
> drugs and turning them out into the streets without supervision. In
> general, they must commit a crime to get treatment.

The drive towards "mainstreaming" was largely from the progressive/liberal
political side, and they were successful.

And then blamed Reagan for it when problems became too apparent to sweep under
the run any more.

Actions have consequences; just try to find anyone who wants to take
responsibility for them.

[Vaughn]

On 12/17/2012 10:13 AM, Dave Head wrote:
> The answer to this_is_ more guns, and having the adults present have

> the OPTION to carry concealed_is_ the answer.

Then _YOU_ are part of the problem. Whatever the range of solutions to
the problem is, none of them involve more guns.

[Vaughn]

On 12/17/2012 11:20 AM, Steve Hix wrote:
>> A couple decades ago the USA shut down the majority of its
>> >publicly funded mental institutions in favor of handing the inmates
>> >drugs and turning them out into the streets without supervision. In
>> >general, they must commit a crime to get treatment.
> The drive towards "mainstreaming" was largely from the progressive/liberal
> political side, and they were successful.
>
> And then blamed Reagan for it when problems became too apparent to sweep under
> the run any more.

I deliberately left out any reference to political blame, and I honestly
didn't remember which administration did that, but history seems to
differ from your version of events. It was clearly Reagan's Omnibus
Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 that did the deed. That said, I do
remember that "liberal-sounding" ideas (largely about the "rights" of
the mentally ill) were advanced as part of the justification at the
time. No doubt, those ideas came from a variety of sources.

" In 1975 Congress passed an Act requiring community mental health
centers to provide aftercare services to all patients in the hopes of
improving recovery rates. In 1980, just five years later, Congress
passed the Mental Health Systems Act, which provided federal funding for
ongoing support and development of community mental health programs.[5]
This Act strengthened the connection between federal, state, and local
governments with regards to funding for community mental health
services. It was the final result of a long series of recommendations by
Jimmy Carter's Mental Health Commission.[4] Despite this apparent
progress, just a year after the Mental Health Systems Act was passed,
the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 was passed. The Omnibus
Act was passed by the efforts of the Reagan administration as an effort
to reduce domestic spending. The Act rescinded a large amount of the
legislation just passed, and the legislation that was not rescinded was
almost entirely revamped. It effectively ended federal funding of
community treatment for the mentally ill, shifting the burden entirely
to individual state governments."
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_mental_health_service

[Dave Head]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:33:27 -0500, Vaughn <vaugh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Of course it does. What do the schools do as the very first thing?
They call the police. Who are the police? People with guns. So,
more guns is ALWAYS the best response... The thing we're trying to do
here is to have the guns already present, without having to be called.
Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[peter skelton]

"Dave Head" wrote in message
news:ttuuc8h2g1qc8bjsp...@4ax.com...

Dealing with shit hitting the fan does not generally include
ensuring the availability of large quantities of shit.

[Louis]

In news:kam0as$6um$1...@speranza.aioe.org Vaughn <vaugh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> The answer to our gun problem is NOT more guns.

Disarm the police.

It was wrong for armed police to have approached the school.

[Andrew Swallow]

Britain has disarmed its police.

[Andrew Swallow]

Have the guns sitting in gun safes at the schools. Where the teachers
and staff can access the weapons but children and intruders cannot.

Andrew Swallow

[Dave Head]

Makes no sense... but of course, banning guns and ensuring a
defenselss victim zone makes no sense either, so you're batting
1000...

[Dave Head]

Have the guns in holsters on the persons of teachers, administrators,
janitorial staff, and any other adult with a CCW. That means NOT in a
car and NOT in a purse and NOT anywhere that they can be "found" by
the kids. These holsters should all be conceled, nobody should be
able to tell who is carrying. It should be a firing offense to reveal
that you are carrying or that you are not carrying, secrecy of this is
the magnifier for its deterrence effect. After that, its not
deterrence, but the use of deadly force against the force of the
attack.

[Andrew Swallow]

That will not work. They are schools not military bases.

Andrew Swallow

[peter skelton]

"Andrew Swallow" wrote in message
news:1LSdnbjlWKpIF1LN...@bt.com...

That, of course, is not the truth.

[peter skelton]

"Dave Head" wrote in message

news:u63vc81uaq481f47k...@4ax.com...

Where did I advocate banning guns? Please try to stay
somewhere within shouting distance of the truth.

[Keith W]

They were never armed to begin with and there are some armed police.

In general firearms are carried by diplomatic protection offficers
and are carried by firearms response units who need the approval
of a senior officer to use them.

That said the level of firearms crime is very low here and the
definition is very broad covering everything from brandishing a
replica to improper storage of a shotgun

In 2010 the stats for England and Wales were

Attempted Murder , GBH and other offences involving wounding
or attempted wounding - 765
Homicides - 59
Robbery - 75
Burglary - 8

Given the population is around 60 million this is pretty low.
Most policeman in the UK will never come across a firearm
in their careers. Most career criminals avoid firearms
like the plague as some hothead killing a guard or bystander
will raise a nationwide hue and cry and guarantee a life
sentence for everyone in the gang.

Its worth noting that since 2000 firearms offences have declined
quite steeply, in 2001 there were 95 homicides involving firearms.

I would also like to point out that contrary to popular opinion
owning a gun in the UK isnt that difficult. Provided you have no
criminal record are not certifiably insane and can persuade
a policeman in a rather friendly interview you can get a
shotgun certificate for hunting. They are rather common in the
village where I live. Of course they are a bust for 'self defense'
as you need to keep both gun and ammunition in locked
steel cupboards. Personally I find a cricket bat carelessly
propped against the wall as reassurance enough.

Keith



Keith

[Keith W]

Really useful when a gunman with a Bushmaster rifle steps through
the door shooting - NOT

Keith

[tutall]

On Dec 17, 2:17 pm, "Keith W" <keithnospoofsple...@demon.co.uk> wrote:

> steel cupboards. Personally I find a cricket bat carelessly
> propped against the wall as reassurance enough.
>
> Keith

What? The fear police haven't reached you yet?

They certainly have reached a large receptive audience here in the US.

The fear mongering is really something to behold. It's a wonder that
anyone buys into it, but they do. The poor addleminded children.

[Shawn Wilson]

On Dec 17, 11:33 am, Vaughn <vaughnsi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > The answer to this_is_  more guns, and having the adults present have
> > the OPTION to carry concealed_is_  the answer.
>
> Then _YOU_ are part of the problem.  Whatever the range of solutions to
> the problem is, none of them involve more guns.

Excuse me? The only solution to a nut on a rampage is a gun in the
hands of someone willing to use it. Police carry guns for a reason.
Say them only, the cops will protect us? Ever notice that cops don't
*stop* crime, they merely show up afterwards and clean up?

Cops in every school? You mean a man with a gun?

One things is crystal clear, after *yet another* mass murder in a 'gun
free zone' the only people benefitting from tha policy are the nuts
with the guns. No one will be able to stop them.

And, for the record, the greatest mass murders in US history were
carried out without the use of a single firearm.

[Bert]

In news:uradnX24NpdgDFLN...@bt.com Andrew Swallow

Why not?

> They are schools not military bases.

Folks don't go armed on US military bases outside combat zones. Ask the
folks at Ft. Hood how that worked out for them.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[Vaughn]

On 12/17/2012 4:22 PM, Dave Head wrote:
> Makes no sense... but of course, banning guns and ensuring a
> defenselss victim zone makes no sense either, so you're batting
> 1000...

On the odd chance that was aimed in my direction, I advocated no such
thing. Hell, I'm even a gun owner.

My main point here is simple: Whatever the range of solutions to our
random massacre problem might be, adding even more guns to the mix won't
be among them.

[Kerryn Offord]

IOW.. if the gun is not immediately available, then it isn't much good..

Of course, given the number of assaults on teachers by students..

Having gun totting teachers could have interesting results..

Like suddenly armed students..

[Kerryn Offord]

And if he hadn't been able to get the guns and ammo so easily, then he
wouldn't have been a man with a gun on a rampage...

[Bert]

In news:kao84c$vf6$1...@dont-email.me Kerryn Offord <ka...@uclive.ac.nz>
wrote:

> Like suddenly armed students..

You think that they're not already armed?

Generally, it's only the law-abiding who are unarmed.

[Bert]

In news:kao87i$vf6$2...@dont-email.me Kerryn Offord <ka...@uclive.ac.nz>
wrote:

> And if he hadn't been able to get the guns and ammo so easily, then he
> wouldn't have been a man with a gun on a rampage...

Nah... He'd be the guy with the flaming bottle of gasoline.

[Keith W]

Bert wrote:
> In news:kao87i$vf6$2...@dont-email.me Kerryn Offord <ka...@uclive.ac.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> And if he hadn't been able to get the guns and ammo so easily, then
>> he wouldn't have been a man with a gun on a rampage...
>
> Nah... He'd be the guy with the flaming bottle of gasoline.

Which is sigularly ineffective as an anti-personnel weapon
that is more likely to injure the user than his intended target.
Policeman in this country are trained by having 'rioters'
through real petrol bombs at them.


Keit

[Mark Borgerson]

In article <0aOzs.1329314$ti6....@fx20.am4>,
keithnosp...@demon.co.uk says...

Good. Now all we have to do is make sure that first-graders have
facemasks, fire-resistant clothing and that training!

Mark Borgerson

[Vaughn]

On 12/17/2012 6:36 PM, Bert wrote:
> In news:kao84c$vf6$1...@dont-email.me Kerryn Offord <ka...@uclive.ac.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> Like suddenly armed students..
>
> You think that they're not already armed?

In general...yes! These days schools have iron clad "zero tolerance"
ant1-weapons policies that are so stringent they sometimes go beyond
common sense.

>
> Generally, it's only the law-abiding who are unarmed.

This is clearly oft-repeated pro-gun babble. Can we please elevate the
conversation a bit?

[Arved Sandstrom]

On 12/17/2012 11:13 AM, Dave Head wrote:
[ SNIP ]

> These mass shootings, the ones that rack up a huge number of dead,
> most often occur in places where some pinhead(s) have banned law
> abiding citizens from carrying weapons. This happens too often to be
> coincidence. Virginia Tech - had there been students and professors
> there that were carrying, that could have been stopped very quickly -
> had there been this one fellow I know, in college now, and an
> ex-Army-Ranger in the 1st classroom this guy started shooting, he
> wouldn't have gotten off a 2nd shot, 'cuz this guy is absolutely
> deadly, and doesn't miss.
>
I don't have a uncomplicated opinion about any of this, I like to hunt
and target shoot yet I think that it's too easy for some folks to get
guns in the US that ought not to have them.

Having said that, let's dispense with some of the bravado. "Very
quickly"? "...wouldn't have gotten off a second shot"? How do you know
that? Just because a number of people in your hypothetical scenario are
carrying concealed, you think they are super-alert and prepared to draw
at all times? They do have other things to do actually. You make it
sound like a wingnut with an assault rifle will only ever get off one
shot and then be gunned down. Somehow I doubt it. Oh sure, the death
toll might be 2 or 3 or 4 as opposed to 15 or 25, but that's not what I
call a spectacular argument.

As to one of your first statements, these mass shootings don't happen
barely ever in a whole bunch of countries where law abiding citizens are
also banned from carrying weapons. Say, Canada. As far as I know the
*only* truly bad mass shooting in a Canadian school in the last hundred
years happened in 1989. Workplace mass killings or other massacres are
also very rare in Canada. Common sense and data make it clear that easy
availability of firearms does make a statistical difference. Unless you
wish to stipulate that the average American is more inclined to lose it
than say Canadians or Europeans, which is unlikely.

AHS

[Orval Fairbairn]

In article <WtPzs.12846$KS4....@newsfe11.iad>,

Well, the guy in Portland was able to interrupt a shooter because he had
a CCW permit and a weapon. See:

http://www.examiner.com/article/media-blackout-oregon-mall-shooter-was-st
opped-by-an-armed-citizen?cid=db_articles

[Steve Hix]

In article <kanq65$mst$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Vaughn <vaugh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 12/17/2012 11:20 AM, Steve Hix wrote:
> >> A couple decades ago the USA shut down the majority of its
> >> >publicly funded mental institutions in favor of handing the inmates
> >> >drugs and turning them out into the streets without supervision. In
> >> >general, they must commit a crime to get treatment.
> > The drive towards "mainstreaming" was largely from the progressive/liberal
> > political side, and they were successful.
> >
> > And then blamed Reagan for it when problems became too apparent to sweep
> > under
> > the run any more.
>
> I deliberately left out any reference to political blame, and I honestly
> didn't remember which administration did that, but history seems to
> differ from your version of events. It was clearly Reagan's Omnibus
> Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 that did the deed. That said, I do
> remember that "liberal-sounding" ideas (largely about the "rights" of
> the mentally ill) were advanced as part of the justification at the
> time. No doubt, those ideas came from a variety of sources.

Things got rolling well before 1981. IIRC, similar laws were passed in
California during the mid-70s, oddly enough during Reagan's term as governor.

Mainstreaming advocates were active at least by the mid-60s, and the ACLU was
involved in winning legal challenges to lowering institutionalizing criteria
around this time.

The 1981 act was just the culmination of years of lobbying for the idea.

[Steve Hix]

In article <50cf8731$1$27880$862e...@ngroups.net>,

Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Just stand around politely waiting for the madman to use up all his ammuntion,
and then ask him nicely to come along.

[Steve Hix]

In article <1LSdnbjlWKpIF1LN...@bt.com>,

And at the same time introduced Authorised Firearms Officers (AFO), crewing
Armed Response Vehicles to attend emergency calls where firearms might be needed.

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Daryl wrote:
> On 12/16/2012 5:58 PM, Dave Head wrote:
>> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 18:09:46 -0500, "Jeffrey Hamilton"
>> <bbere...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
>>
>> I want to see how bad you mess your pants when you have a big moose
>> or grizzly charging at you and you have 1 shot... and miss...
>>
>
> It's called Natural Culling of a Species.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZrdXcpnKsgQ when you just need one
> shot.

Oh look, a future Darwinian award recipient caught on camera.
Good find Daryl.

> Daryl

I didn't respond to Mr Head because I thought his response was silly.
For centuries the white man shot big game with single shot firearms.
The first nations peoples used flint tipped arrows and spears, to kill big
game, for millennium.
When did it become necessary to require an semi-automatic military style
combat rifle to kill a moose or grizzly ?

cheers....Jeff

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Andrew Swallow wrote:
> On 17/12/2012 02:29, Gernot Hassenpflug wrote:
>> Andrew Swallow <am.sw...@btinternet.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 15/12/2012 19:32, David E. Powell wrote:
>>>> These don't seem to happen as much in Israel or Switzerland where
>>>> just about everyone is packing.
>>
>> /../
>>
>>> Mugging and car jacking. To get your wallet or car keys a mugger
>>> has to come within arms length. To defend against mugging your
>>> weapon has to be on you. A rife is too big. A short range weapon
>>> with 2 or 3 bullets is sufficient.
>>
>> LOL
>>
>
> Oh yes. The rest of the bullets are unnecessary weight. They have
> guns too, so you cannot fight more than a couple of people.
>
> Andrew Swallow

But do you need a 30 or 50 or 100 round magazine ?

cheers....Jeff

[Steve Hix]

In article <0aOzs.1329314$ti6....@fx20.am4>,

Tell that to the victims of the Hotel Dupont Plaza fire...

[Steve Hix]

In article <kaodek$95e$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Vaughn <vaugh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Do you seriously expect that criminals are going to obey gun control laws?

There's a reason they are sometimes called Victim Disarmament laws.

[Steve Hix]

In article <WtPzs.12846$KS4....@newsfe11.iad>,
Arved Sandstrom <asand...@eastlink.ca> wrote:

> As to one of your first statements, these mass shootings don't happen
> barely ever in a whole bunch of countries where law abiding citizens are
> also banned from carrying weapons. Say, Canada.

This was true long before Canada adopted strict gun control laws. It's a
cultural thing. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.

Here's a fun one for you. After Canada adopted their current more stringent
handgun control laws, they saw a slight increase in the suicide rate.

Huh?

Turns out that that was the result of other more lethal means being substituted
for the harder to get handguns, things like stepping off a high bridge.

[Steve Hix]

In article <WtPzs.12846$KS4....@newsfe11.iad>,
Arved Sandstrom <asand...@eastlink.ca> wrote:

> Workplace mass killings or other massacres are
> also very rare in Canada. Common sense and data make it clear that easy
> availability of firearms does make a statistical difference.

So the Yukon and NWT streets are running in blood? (They have legal firearm
ownership rates exceeding all but a tiny fraction of U.S. areas.)

In most of the U.S., legal ownership rates do not directly correspond with
gun-related violence rates. Look down into the details, it's not the guns that
are the gating item.

> Unless you wish to stipulate that the average American is more inclined to lose it
> than say Canadians or Europeans, which is unlikely.

Remove the contribution of young black and hispanic urban males in the U.S., and
you've got rates almost identical to Canada's.

Again, it really is cultural.

[Vaughn]

On 12/17/2012 8:59 PM, Steve Hix wrote:
>> This is clearly oft-repeated pro-gun babble. Can we please elevate the
>> >conversation a bit?
> Do you seriously expect that criminals are going to obey gun control laws?
>
> There's a reason they are sometimes called Victim Disarmament laws.

I guess that was too much to ask.

[Daryl]

I only need one.....Where you at?



--
http://tvmoviesforfree.com
for free movies and Nostalgic TV. Tons of Military shows and
programs.

[Jeffrey Hamilton]

Andrew Swallow wrote:

> On 16/12/2012 23:09, Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:
>> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>>> On 15/12/2012 19:32, David E. Powell wrote:
>>>> These don't seem to happen as much in Israel or Switzerland where

>>>> just about everyone is packing. That being the other side of the
>>>> argument.
>>>>
>>>> We may have to do what Israel did after Ma'alot and have armed
>>>> guards or staff members though that will be a sad day it probably
>>>> would save lives. The Secret Service did a study of these attacks
>>>> a while back, after
>>>> Columbine, the massacre types tend to kill themselves when they see
>>>> an armed response coming. (Some surrender, like the Aurora movie
>>>> theater killer. Few seem to resist an armed response. Cowards are
>>>> like that.) There are cases of htese attacks being stopped by
>>>> police, guards, or even school staff in at least one case where a
>>>> teacher got a lever action rifle from his car and held the suspect
>>>> at gunpoint, stopping the spree immediately. In the case of
>>>> this killer he apparently killed himself when he saw
>>>> police coming to the School. One detail was a rifle had apparently
>>>> been left in the car he'd
>>>> stolen (Along with the guns, probably from his then-dead mother, a
>>>> real scumbag here.) Had he come to the door with a rifle he would
>>>> never have been "buzzed in." He had to get in to start killing. Sadly,
>>>> the Israeli way will probably be the only way to go, it the
>>>> real world.
>>>
>>> Some thoughts.
>>>
>>> Several of these massacres appear to happen at schools and
>>> universities. They are normally performed by a single individual.
>>> Schools could be equipped with two gun cabinets in different rooms -
>>> that way a staff member can always get hold of a weapon. Teachers
>>> and other school employees to be trained members of the militia.
>>
>> NO. Teachers are for teaching, what you do is hire retired
>> cops/military with firearms experience.
>>
>
> Big universities can do that. Small schools with only 2 or 3 teachers
> cannot afford a security guard.

It becomes a part of the state budget.
Do you still have one-room school houses, in America ? Many ?

>>> Separate secure cupboards for guns and ammunition. Reduces
>>> accidents and makes it harder for the bad guys. Guns only need loading
>>> when
>>> you are going to fire them.
>>
>> You need the firearms present where the incident is about to begin.
>> This guy shot his way in, waht good is a gun elsewhere when you need
>> it "right-right then" ?
>>
>
> Basic safety, you do not leave loaded guns lying around for children
> to pick up and play with.

No one said anything about leaving them lying around, Andrew, the gun is
kept holstered.

>That means a locked gun cabinet. The
> second cabinet permits the staff to get a gun whilst being in a
> different room from the gunman.

Locked in a cabinet wouldn't have helped in a situation like this one.
You're quite likely to get shot whilst trying to open that "locked" cabinet.
You're counting on that gunman not moving into your room, this one went from
room to room.

>>> Hunting. You do not need a machine gun to kill a deer or a duck.
>>> Restrict the weapons to two bullets or shotgun cartridges as a time.
>>
>> One sounds good to me, unless of course, it's a double-barreled
>> weapon, hey wait they've already done that haven't they ?
>>
>
> Good, then that is easy to do.
>
>>> Fun shooting. Use flint locks with gun powder. Normal proficiency
>>> 3 rounds a minute. Impress your friends by achieving 4 rounds a
>>> minute.
>>
>> So far, so good.

>>
>>> Mugging and car jacking. To get your wallet or car keys a mugger
>>> has to come within arms length. To defend against mugging your weapon
>>> has to be on you. A rife is too big. A short range weapon with 2
>>> or 3 bullets is sufficient.
>>

>> Andrew there are and were flinlock pistols.....NEXT !
>>
>
> I suspect that modern adverts for flintlock pistols do not say
> anything about personnel protection. Although that could change.
>
> People may prefer to carry pistols with room for 3 bullets.
>
As long as we can agree the average citizen does not need a 30 round
magazine, ever !

>>> Home protection. This needs further thought. Who are you defending
>>> your home from? In the case of bad guys it is the police.
>>> Weapons can be locked away with guns and ammunition in separate
>>> cabinets. Inside the building short range weapons. Against a
>>> target in the garden medium range is probably appropriate - it is rare
>>> for
>>> anything over a 100 yards to be a genuine threat.
>>
>> OK, so add a bayonet option to your flintlock.....NEXT !
>>
>>> Militia. Some out of the box thinking. The default militia weapon
>>> should be the water pistol. All US adults should be required to
>>> have a water pistol. This is suitable for training children in the
>>> correct methods to care for and handle weapons, whilst preventing
>>> them from hurting themselves.
>>
>> That is not out of the box thinking, Andrew, that is just plain
>> stupidity....NEXT !
>>
> It is fun not stupid. It is actually the important one.

You don't want some 3 year old child thinking he's going to stop a bad guy
with a water pistol, that's a definate way to collect a bullet between the
eyes.

> First it is how you train 3 years children how to handle and care for
> guns. Second it is how we limit the fire power of madmen and crooks.

I don't want to train 3 year olds how to handle and care for firearms, that
is just plain nuts !

>>> A certification system for weapons needs devising. It would be a
>>> breach of discipline to use a weapon without the appropriate
>>> certification except under supervision. Congress has a
>>> Constitutional power to write a discipline for the militias. On
>>> conviction for a felony a man's certificates can be cancelled, so he can
>>> only use and
>>> bear a water pistol.
>>
>> How about if Washington issues laws, good for all 50 States, One
>> size fits all.
>> *Fuck States rights !*
>
> State rights. States appoint Militia officers. Congress writes the
> Militia rules. Anything else change the US Constitution.

I'm not talking about Militia or their officers, Andrew, I'm talking about
gun laws.
Federal gun laws that cover ALL 50 states !

>>> To fight invasion weapons able to kill soldiers are needed. As
>>> terrorists have discovered by trial and error modern soldiers wear
>>> armour so the modern militia fighting weapon will have to be some
>>> type of rocket propelled grenade launcher. Carrying a loaded launcher
>>> when off duty should be a major breach of discipline.
>>
>> Huh ? What kind of black-powder launcher are you talking about here
>> Andrew, a cannon ?
>>
>
> Real weapons. This is for war. The days when the primary infantry
> war weapon is the rife are passing.

Why do you need those in America, what war do you believe you are going to
be fighting and against whom ?

> RPG are a bit clumsy for muggings - passing policemen notice them. The
> Militia could keep its grenade launchers in the armoury at the
> local base.

I am NOT talking about Militia, Andrew and I never was !

>>> Military. Lots of different weapons when on duty. To be stored
>>> securely. Off duty - armed in a similar way to civilians.
>>
>> If it's black-powder, over the mantlepiece will suffice. Hey, it
>> worked before.
>>
>
> Bring it up to date - over the radiator. ;)
>
>>> 100 years. There are lots of weapons in the USA but most ones used
>>> to commit murder are less than a 100 years old. The people have a
>>> constitutional right to bear arms, they do not have a right to
>>> inherit weapons. When a man dies his weapons should be formally
>>> destroyed. His son can go to the gun shop and get his own weapons
>>> registered to him.
>>
>> If you're merely trying to create work for gunsmiths, OK, if not why
>> destroy them if they are in good working condition ?
>>
>
> To get this sort of rule passed having gunsmiths and gun shops as
> allies helps.
>
I expect them to obey the law. period.

> If honest Americans are going back to flintlocks and single/three shot
> pistols then they will want other gun types destroying. (The Army
> will not want large amounts of out of date weapons that use
> incompatible ammunition.)

Again, this is just for honest Americans, Andrew and NOT the military.

> There are too many gun nuts who will keep up their guns until their
> dying breath. OK. We will wait until they are dead.

Declare a period of amnesty, to hand them in and once that time period has
passed, don't get caught with a banned firearm or a banned accessory, or
else suffer the full wrath of the judicial system !

>>> Delay between the massacre and the writing of new laws means that
>>> the laws lose their urgency. Unfortunately there will be future
>>> massacres in the USA. By drafting the new regulations now Congress can
>>> react
>>> rapidly to the next massacre by passing the new laws.
>>
>> Agreed. Now IS the time to act, beware those that try to delay
>> affirmative action !
>>
>> cheers....Jeff
>>
>>> Andrew Swallow

[Steve Hix]

In article <kaojo6$me8$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Vaughn <vaugh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Gun control enthusiasts do surely seem to engage in magical thinking.

Doesn't correlate all that well with reality, unfortunately.

[Dave Head]

On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:43:30 +0000, Andrew Swallow
<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>On 17/12/2012 21:26, Dave Head wrote:

>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 21:15:15 +0000, Andrew Swallow
>> <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 17/12/2012 20:09, Dave Head wrote:

>>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:33:27 -0500, Vaughn <vaugh...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>
>>>>> On 12/17/2012 10:13 AM, Dave Head wrote:
>>>>>> The answer to this_is_ more guns, and having the adults present have
>>>>>> the OPTION to carry concealed_is_ the answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then _YOU_ are part of the problem. Whatever the range of solutions to
>>>>> the problem is, none of them involve more guns.
>>>>

>>>> Of course it does. What do the schools do as the very first thing?
>>>> They call the police. Who are the police? People with guns. So,
>>>> more guns is ALWAYS the best response... The thing we're trying to do
>>>> here is to have the guns already present, without having to be called.
>>>> Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Have the guns sitting in gun safes at the schools. Where the teachers
>>> and staff can access the weapons but children and intruders cannot.
>>>
>>> Andrew Swallow
>>

>> Have the guns in holsters on the persons of teachers, administrators,
>> janitorial staff, and any other adult with a CCW. That means NOT in a
>> car and NOT in a purse and NOT anywhere that they can be "found" by
>> the kids. These holsters should all be conceled, nobody should be
>> able to tell who is carrying. It should be a firing offense to reveal
>> that you are carrying or that you are not carrying, secrecy of this is
>> the magnifier for its deterrence effect. After that, its not
>> deterrence, but the use of deadly force against the force of the
>> attack.
>>

>That will not work. They are schools not military bases.
>
>Andrew Swallow

That absolutely will work. Defensive bullets will fly just as
straight and just as powerful in a school as on a military base, and
the threat will be neutralized.

Why do people with no logical leg to stand on simply come up with
nonsense like "That will not work" and not give at least some logical
reason for why?

[Keith W]

Which was NOT caused by throwing a flaming
bottle of gasoline. The perpetrators poured cans
of flammable liquid over furniture piled high in
a store room and set it alight.

Most of the casualties occurred as a result of the use
of flammable materials in public rooms, a design
that turned the place into a giant chimney and the
fact that many of the fire doors were locked !

Keith

[Andrew Swallow]

On 17/12/2012 22:18, Keith W wrote:

> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> On 17/12/2012 20:09, Dave Head wrote:
>>> On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 13:33:27 -0500, Vaughn <vaugh...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/17/2012 10:13 AM, Dave Head wrote:
>>>>> The answer to this_is_ more guns, and having the adults present
>>>>> have the OPTION to carry concealed_is_ the answer.
>>>>
>>>> Then _YOU_ are part of the problem. Whatever the range of
>>>> solutions to the problem is, none of them involve more guns.
>>>
>>> Of course it does. What do the schools do as the very first thing?
>>> They call the police. Who are the police? People with guns. So,
>>> more guns is ALWAYS the best response... The thing we're trying to
>>> do here is to have the guns already present, without having to be
>>> called. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes
>>> away.
>>
>> Have the guns sitting in gun safes at the schools. Where the teachers
>> and staff can access the weapons but children and intruders cannot.
>>
>> Andrew Swallow
>

> Really useful when a gunman with a Bushmaster rifle steps through
> the door shooting - NOT
>
> Keith
>
>

The best you will get. Anything open in reception means the gunman get
given an extra gun.

The shoot back from from a man at the back of the building, which is why
at least 2 gun safes are needed.

Andrew Swallow

[Arved Sandstrom]

On 12/17/2012 10:03 PM, Steve Hix wrote:
> In article <WtPzs.12846$KS4....@newsfe11.iad>,
> Arved Sandstrom <asand...@eastlink.ca> wrote:
>
>> As to one of your first statements, these mass shootings don't happen
>> barely ever in a whole bunch of countries where law abiding citizens are
>> also banned from carrying weapons. Say, Canada.
>
> This was true long before Canada adopted strict gun control laws. It's a
> cultural thing. Correlation doesn't necessarily imply causation.

The cultural differences between Canada and the US explain why the
firearms ownership rates are so different. A considerably smaller
percentage (albeit not an insignificant percentage) of Canadians own
guns, the mindset is also much more of using firearms for hunting and
target shooting, and observation of the much stricter storage and
transportation regulations is generally honoured.

Having said that, in other cultural ways that matter Canada is not so
much different than the States. Presumably we've got roughly the same
percentage of people with mental problems and strong emotions and
grievances as Americans do. Yet before and after strict gun control - as
you yourself pointed out - it's exceptionally rare for Canada to see
these incidents.

What's the single difference that can explain that? I think it's
prevalence and availability of guns. It's easy for someone twisted in
the US to get a firearm, it's not easy for a similar individual in
Canada to do the same.

> Here's a fun one for you. After Canada adopted their current more stringent
> handgun control laws, they saw a slight increase in the suicide rate.
>
> Huh?
>
> Turns out that that was the result of other more lethal means being substituted
> for the harder to get handguns, things like stepping off a high bridge.
>

No doubt, but how genuinely suicidal people off themselves, or attempt
to do so, isn't the major problem we've got.

AHS

[Andrew Swallow]

On 17/12/2012 22:45, Bert wrote:
> In news:uradnX24NpdgDFLN...@bt.com Andrew Swallow

> <am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>> On 17/12/2012 21:26, Dave Head wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Have the guns in holsters on the persons of teachers, administrators,
>>> janitorial staff, and any other adult with a CCW. That means NOT in
>>> a car and NOT in a purse and NOT anywhere that they can be "found" by
>>> the kids. These holsters should all be conceled, nobody should be
>>> able to tell who is carrying. It should be a firing offense to
>>> reveal that you are carrying or that you are not carrying, secrecy of
>>> this is the magnifier for its deterrence effect. After that, its not
>>> deterrence, but the use of deadly force against the force of the
>>> attack.
>>>
>> That will not work.
>

> Why not?

The prime gun risk in schools is a child treating the gun as a toy and
shooting itself or a playmate. So if the staff do not draw the weapon
for a month it will get put away. When they need to find a weapon in a
hurry it will have to be a proper safe place.

>
>> They are schools not military bases.
>

> Folks don't go armed on US military bases outside combat zones. Ask the
> folks at Ft. Hood how that worked out for them.
>
They got him.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

On 17/12/2012 23:36, Bert wrote:
> In news:kao84c$vf6$1...@dont-email.me Kerryn Offord <ka...@uclive.ac.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> Like suddenly armed students..
>
> You think that they're not already armed?
>
> Generally, it's only the law-abiding who are unarmed.
>

A physical confession makes it much easier to work out who the bad guys are.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

On 17/12/2012 23:36, Bert wrote:

> In news:kao87i$vf6$2...@dont-email.me Kerryn Offord <ka...@uclive.ac.nz>
> wrote:
>
>> And if he hadn't been able to get the guns and ammo so easily, then he
>> wouldn't have been a man with a gun on a rampage...
>
> Nah... He'd be the guy with the flaming bottle of gasoline.
>

He can be rugby tackled.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

For personal defence a 3 round magazine is sufficient.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

On 18/12/2012 02:19, Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:
> Andrew Swallow wrote:
>> On 16/12/2012 23:09, Jeffrey Hamilton wrote:
>>> Andrew Swallow wrote:

{snip}

>>>>
>>>> Some thoughts.
>>>>
>>>> Several of these massacres appear to happen at schools and
>>>> universities. They are normally performed by a single individual.
>>>> Schools could be equipped with two gun cabinets in different rooms -
>>>> that way a staff member can always get hold of a weapon. Teachers
>>>> and other school employees to be trained members of the militia.
>>>
>>> NO. Teachers are for teaching, what you do is hire retired
>>> cops/military with firearms experience.
>>>
>>
>> Big universities can do that. Small schools with only 2 or 3 teachers
>> cannot afford a security guard.
>
> It becomes a part of the state budget.
> Do you still have one-room school houses, in America ? Many ?
>
>>>> Separate secure cupboards for guns and ammunition. Reduces
>>>> accidents and makes it harder for the bad guys. Guns only need loading
>>>> when
>>>> you are going to fire them.
>>>
>>> You need the firearms present where the incident is about to begin.
>>> This guy shot his way in, waht good is a gun elsewhere when you need
>>> it "right-right then" ?
>>>
>>
>> Basic safety, you do not leave loaded guns lying around for children
>> to pick up and play with.
>
> No one said anything about leaving them lying around, Andrew, the gun is
> kept holstered.
>

A holstered gun in a classroom *is lying around*.
This unfortunately is a measure of the difficulty of the problem.

You are a Canadian and I am British, we do not train our children to
carry guns. However some Americans do and these rules are for Americans.

>>>> A certification system for weapons needs devising. It would be a
>>>> breach of discipline to use a weapon without the appropriate
>>>> certification except under supervision. Congress has a
>>>> Constitutional power to write a discipline for the militias. On
>>>> conviction for a felony a man's certificates can be cancelled, so he can
>>>> only use and
>>>> bear a water pistol.
>>>
>>> How about if Washington issues laws, good for all 50 States, One
>>> size fits all.
>>> *Fuck States rights !*
>>
>> State rights. States appoint Militia officers. Congress writes the
>> Militia rules. Anything else change the US Constitution.
>
> I'm not talking about Militia or their officers, Andrew, I'm talking about
> gun laws.
> Federal gun laws that cover ALL 50 states !
>

In the USA gun laws are a state matter except for guns used by the
Militia and its members. Since every man is in the Militia that is how
Federal gun laws for civilians will have to be passed. (The ban on
blacks has presumably been lifted.)

>>>> To fight invasion weapons able to kill soldiers are needed. As
>>>> terrorists have discovered by trial and error modern soldiers wear
>>>> armour so the modern militia fighting weapon will have to be some
>>>> type of rocket propelled grenade launcher. Carrying a loaded launcher
>>>> when off duty should be a major breach of discipline.
>>>
>>> Huh ? What kind of black-powder launcher are you talking about here
>>> Andrew, a cannon ?
>>>
>>
>> Real weapons. This is for war. The days when the primary infantry
>> war weapon is the rife are passing.
>
> Why do you need those in America, what war do you believe you are going to
> be fighting and against whom ?
>

Probably blacks V whites, although Latinos V Blacks are a modern
possibility.

>> RPG are a bit clumsy for muggings - passing policemen notice them. The
>> Militia could keep its grenade launchers in the armoury at the
>> local base.
>
> I am NOT talking about Militia, Andrew and I never was !
>

The US Second Amendment is Militia, any cure that passes the Supreme
Court has to deal with that.

>>>> Military. Lots of different weapons when on duty. To be stored
>>>> securely. Off duty - armed in a similar way to civilians.
>>>
>>> If it's black-powder, over the mantlepiece will suffice. Hey, it
>>> worked before.
>>>
>>
>> Bring it up to date - over the radiator. ;)
>>
>>>> 100 years. There are lots of weapons in the USA but most ones used
>>>> to commit murder are less than a 100 years old. The people have a
>>>> constitutional right to bear arms, they do not have a right to
>>>> inherit weapons. When a man dies his weapons should be formally
>>>> destroyed. His son can go to the gun shop and get his own weapons
>>>> registered to him.
>>>
>>> If you're merely trying to create work for gunsmiths, OK, if not why
>>> destroy them if they are in good working condition ?
>>>
>>
>> To get this sort of rule passed having gunsmiths and gun shops as
>> allies helps.
>>
> I expect them to obey the law. period.
>

Getting the law changed is hard in the USA.

>> If honest Americans are going back to flintlocks and single/three shot
>> pistols then they will want other gun types destroying. (The Army
>> will not want large amounts of out of date weapons that use
>> incompatible ammunition.)
>
> Again, this is just for honest Americans, Andrew and NOT the military.
>
>> There are too many gun nuts who will keep up their guns until their
>> dying breath. OK. We will wait until they are dead.
>
> Declare a period of amnesty, to hand them in and once that time period has
> passed, don't get caught with a banned firearm or a banned accessory, or
> else suffer the full wrath of the judicial system !
>

Due to the Second Amendment that law would be illegal in the USA.

However the Militia can be 'Well regulated'. Make the official weapon a
water pistol then having any other weapon, without certification, is a
breach of the regulations. The unauthorised weapons can be confiscated
by the courts and destroyed.

Andrew Swallow

[Andrew Swallow]

Particularity when the bang bang toys are fired by children.

> Why do people with no logical leg to stand on simply come up with
> nonsense like "That will not work" and not give at least some logical
> reason for why?
>

Because people like you have not even begun to think about the problem
and side effects of your proposed cure.

Andrew Swallow

[Dave Head]

English much? I wouldn't pick nits, except I really can't understand
this. "Anything open in reception" means what? "The gunman get given
an extra gun" - how does that work (disregarding the statement should
be "the gunman getS given..."

The defensive weapon is withdrawn from a concealed holster worn by an
adult normally at the school. Any gun that a gunman "gets given"
should be empty, from the defender firing all the bullets in it at the
assailant.

>The shoot back from from a man at the back of the building, which is why
>at least 2 gun safes are needed.

Again, "The shoot back"??? Make sense. Does this mean that there is
somehow a man in the back of the building shooting at the assailant,
or something else? Who is this man shooting from the back of the
building, and why is he in the back of the building? Why are we
talking about the building as if it is a wide open space like a
warehouse, rather than a compartmented building with many rooms like a
school? You're not making much sense, and have not established a
context for your readers. You may be talking about a classroom
situation or a hallway situation or a gymnasium situation. No one can
tell from your response.


>Andrew Swallow

[Dave Head]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 11:44:38 +0000, Andrew Swallow
<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

>A holstered gun in a classroom *is lying around*.
>This unfortunately is a measure of the difficulty of the problem.

We think you are deliberately misunderstanding. A holstered gun is
underneath clothing and not visible to anyone. To "find" it an
invasive hand would have to reach down inside someone's pants, or
inside someone's shirt, in exactly the right place to find and
retrieve a gun that they do not know is there.

[Dave Head]

You are not making sense. The scene is the aftermath of a hurricane.
There is no law, they cannot drive the streets that are full of debris
any better than you can. A band of 6 thugs wish to loot your home,
rape your wife, and kill you both. What are you going to do about it?
Presently, with the M4 / AR15, we shoot them all, a 30 round magazine
will discourage / kill them all. That's the sort of defense we're
talking about. _We_ are unique in having these sorts of criminals,
you Europeans have folks who, even in outlaw mode, are not much
inclined to murder. Ours murder. If you want to not wake up dead,
you better have a good defense.

[Chas]

On 18-Dec-2012, Dave Head <rall...@att.net> wrote:

> >A holstered gun in a classroom *is lying around*.
> >This unfortunately is a measure of the difficulty of the problem.
>
> We think you are deliberately misunderstanding. A holstered gun is
> underneath clothing and not visible to anyone. To "find" it an
> invasive hand would have to reach down inside someone's pants, or
> inside someone's shirt, in exactly the right place to find and
> retrieve a gun that they do not know is there.

Are you suggesting teachers be required to carry a firearm?
That will go nowhere.

[Bert]

In news:hbGdnZ0pL7TW003N...@bt.com Andrew Swallow

<am.sw...@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 17/12/2012 22:45, Bert wrote:
>> In news:uradnX24NpdgDFLN...@bt.com Andrew Swallow
>
>>

>> Folks don't go armed on US military bases outside combat zones. Ask
>> the folks at Ft. Hood how that worked out for them.
>>
> They got him.

He killed 13 people and wounded 29 others, and wasn't stopped until the
police (NOT the military police, by the way) eventually showed up.

--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN

[Dave Head]

No, I'm suggesting that teachers NOT be PROHIBITED from carrying a
firearm. Other adults also in the building should not be prohibited
from carrying a firearm would be janitors, food service people,
administrators, the school nurse, etc. A would-be attacker should not
be able to predict from where and how many guns may be pointed at him
if he displays a weaon in a school.

>That will go nowhere.

And there is the fatal mistake - ruling out, simply for reasons of
irrational fear, the only process that is likely to work.

[Mark Borgerson]

In article <ET0As.12972$KS4....@newsfe11.iad>, Chas H@ anywhere.com
says...

You must not understand Texans. Governor Rick Perry is
considering the idea of arming teachers. I think it will
be optional, not required.

http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/local-politics/20121217-texas-
gov.-rick-perry-to-speak-at-tarrant-county-tea-party-meeting.ece


Mark Borgerson

[Vaughn]

On 12/18/2012 12:45 PM, Dave Head wrote:
> And there is the fatal mistake - ruling out, simply for reasons of
> irrational fear,

There is your "magical thinking" again! There are plenty of RATIONAL
reasons to fear people carrying guns around children. Especially
unqualified (or even marginally-qualified & licensed) civilians.

>the only process that is likely to work.

Driveling irrational nonsense.

[Chas]

No irrational fear on my part. If you are refering to the teachers, how do
you propose to change that "irrational fear"?
Requiring teachers to carry simply won't work because teachers are not gonna
do it and the teachers unions will see that it doesn't happen.
Teachers aren't armed guards or LEOs, so unless it's required most teachers
aren't gonna carry.

[Chas]

On 18-Dec-2012, Mark Borgerson <mborg...@comcast.net> wrote:

> > >
> > > We think you are deliberately misunderstanding. A holstered gun is
> > > underneath clothing and not visible to anyone. To "find" it an
> > > invasive hand would have to reach down inside someone's pants, or
> > > inside someone's shirt, in exactly the right place to find and
> > > retrieve a gun that they do not know is there.
> >
> > Are you suggesting teachers be required to carry a firearm?
> > That will go nowhere.
>
> You must not understand Texans. Governor Rick Perry is
> considering the idea of arming teachers. I think it will
> be optional, not required.
>
> http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/local-politics/20121217-texas-
> gov.-rick-perry-to-speak-at-tarrant-county-tea-party-meeting.ece
>
>
> Mark Borgerson

I don't see what understanding Texans has to do with it. Rick Perry is an
idiot, as he demonstrated during the recent primary run-up- that much I do
understand.

Most teachers are gonna opt to not carry.

[Bert]

In news:RQ3As.22589$411....@newsfe02.iad Chas H@ anywhere.com wrote:

> Most teachers are gonna opt to not carry.

Their choice, of course. It should be interesting to hear their reasons.

--
Bert be...@iphouse.com

[Dave Head]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 14:25:53 -0500, Vaughn <vaugh...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 12/18/2012 12:45 PM, Dave Head wrote:
>> And there is the fatal mistake - ruling out, simply for reasons of
>> irrational fear,
>
>There is your "magical thinking" again! There are plenty of RATIONAL
>reasons to fear people carrying guns around children.

No, there aren't. We have deadly weapons around kids every day,
operated by responsible adults. They are called automobiles and can
kill very effectively. But, mostly they don't. Same with guns. Your
teacher, janitor, etc. can handle a gun just as effectively as they
handle a car. Y'all just get all sideways because its a weapon. Stop
being a hoplophobe.

>Especially
>unqualified (or even marginally-qualified & licensed) civilians.

You actually have no idea, have never tried it, and are just operating
on your knee-jerk fear of weapons.

>
>>the only process that is likely to work.
>
>Driveling irrational nonsense.

Nope. Its the absolute truth. Defense is the only cure for this.

[Dave Head]

On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:49:57 GMT, Chas H@ anywhere.com wrote:

>
>On 18-Dec-2012, Dave Head <rall...@att.net> wrote:
>
>> >A holstered gun in a classroom *is lying around*.
>> >> >This unfortunately is a measure of the difficulty of the problem.
>> >>
>> >> We think you are deliberately misunderstanding. A holstered gun is
>> >> underneath clothing and not visible to anyone. To "find" it an
>> >> invasive hand would have to reach down inside someone's pants, or
>> >> inside someone's shirt, in exactly the right place to find and
>> >> retrieve a gun that they do not know is there.
>> >
>> >Are you suggesting teachers be required to carry a firearm?
>>
>> No, I'm suggesting that teachers NOT be PROHIBITED from carrying a
>> firearm. Other adults also in the building should not be prohibited
>> from carrying a firearm would be janitors, food service people,
>> administrators, the school nurse, etc. A would-be attacker should not
>> be able to predict from where and how many guns may be pointed at him
>> if he displays a weaon in a school.
>>
>> >That will go nowhere.
>>
>> And there is the fatal mistake - ruling out, simply for reasons of
>> irrational fear, the only process that is likely to work.
>
>No irrational fear on my part. If you are refering to the teachers, how do
>you propose to change that "irrational fear"?

No, I'm referring to all the people that throw their hands in the air
and run around in circles at the 1st mention of actually defending the
kids and themselves with a gun. The teachers don't have to have their
attitude changed, becuase if they don't want to, they don't have to.
But when you've got 15 or more teachers, plus the other adults in the
school, there's going to be a few that will want to carry, and that's
all we need.

>Requiring teachers to carry simply won't work

Not requiring. Allowing.

>because teachers are not gonna
>do it and the teachers unions will see that it doesn't happen.

F the teacher's union, they have no say in this. This is a safety
issue. The schools are unsafe BECAUSE of pinheads making dumb rules
about not having guns at schools.

>Teachers aren't armed guards or LEOs, so unless it's required most teachers
>aren't gonna carry.

Most teachers don't have to carry. Only a few need be present with a
gun. They can be teachers, administrators, food service, the school
nurse, or even teachers aids - parents with CCWs. All we have to do
is get rid of this idiot "gun free school zone" and the potential
school shooters will instead pick on a theater where the pinheads in
charge have put up "no guns allowed" signs... as they did in Aurora.