CT school shooting

[Kevin]

 

The type of weapon is irrevelant, he probably would have caused more fatalities if he used an old school shotgun.

He probably would have caused more fatalities if he used an old school shotgun.  So old school shotguns are the weapon of choice for shooting lots of people?   Is that what the SEALS take on their missions, old school shot guns? No one gonna challenge Tex on this one?  All you gun guys gonna just let this go?   Probably.

[JeanG]

Cumbria shootings, UK, 2010. Thirteen years after extremely restrictive firearm policies are put into place.

Weapons: Bolt action .22 rifle, double barrel "old school" shotgun

Twelve dead.

Varmint gun and a pheasant gun.

...It's...not...the...guns...

[Chan]

Ichabod and Chan-that scripture was not intended to say jesus condones violence-neither do i-but keep in mind there is a time for everything according to Ecclesiastes. That was a pretty cheap shot Chan and you know it. Lots of scriptures in the bible about war and violence-the war in the spiritual realms etc..you say i took the scripture out of context and i say you took my posting of it out of context. I wish the bible and Jesus teachings were more easily understood and interpreted, but theyre not, he even spoke often in Parables, and he did it for a reason. the bible was written exactly as he intended it to be.

hmmmm, once again, INTERPRETATION.
Line up 10 christian leaders-youd get a varying mix of interpretation
the nutty snake handler pastor has his interpretation, they guy who wants to burn the Koran has his, ad nauseum....
Talk about a comlicated issue, and im not going to get into an argument on religion here on the SUZ.

I think i speak for the majority that thats the last thing we want right now.

Keep your family close-hug and cherish your children-Merry Christmas to all and God Bless.

Not at all a cheap shot.  I wouldn't bring religion into this debate, but as you have, I would and do find fault with your interpretation.

[PonoBill]

The type of weapon is irrevelant, he probably would have caused more fatalities if he used an old school shotgun.

He probably would have caused more fatalities if he used an old school shotgun.  So old school shotguns are the weapon of choice for shooting lots of people?   Is that what the SEALS take on their missions, old school shot guns? No one gonna challenge Tex on this one?  All you gun guys gonna just let this go?   Probably.

There's nothing in that statement to challenge. The purpose of an assault rifle is to combine mid range accuracy with high rate of fire. That's why soldiers use them. When range is known to be short and no target discrimination  is required a shotgun is a preferred choice.

[Kevin]

Cumbria shootings, UK, 2010. Thirteen years after extremely restrictive firearm policies are put into place.

Weapons: Bolt action .22 rifle, double barrel "old school" shotgun

Twelve dead.

Varmint gun and a pheasant gun.

...It's...not...the...guns...

you know, I'd guess the AR 15 with high cap magazine made a big difference.

[Kevin]

The type of weapon is irrevelant, he probably would have caused more fatalities if he used an old school shotgun.

He probably would have caused more fatalities if he used an old school shotgun.  So old school shotguns are the weapon of choice for shooting lots of people?   Is that what the SEALS take on their missions, old school shot guns? No one gonna challenge Tex on this one?  All you gun guys gonna just let this go?   Probably.

There's nothing in that statement to challenge. The purpose of an assault rifle is to combine mid range accuracy with high rate of fire. That's why soldiers use them. When range is known to be short and no target discrimination  is required a shotgun is a preferred choice.

But an old school shotgun.  You've got to constantly reload.  One of the adults would have tackled that kid and there would have been many fewer casualties.  That's the entire point of the discussion related to gun control.  If you can't concede that then there is no conversation.   No one is going to walk into a building planning to shoot a bunch of people with an old fashioned shot gun if they also have the option of using a high capacity magazine rifle. 

[Kevin]

Cumbria shootings, UK, 2010. Thirteen years after extremely restrictive firearm policies are put into place.

Weapons: Bolt action .22 rifle, double barrel "old school" shotgun

Twelve dead.

Varmint gun and a pheasant gun.

...It's...not...the...guns...

I read about that on the internet.  That guy didn't even need the shotgun.  Many of the people he shot from a distance.  All he needed was the rifle.

[PonoBill]

As I've said from the beginning, I have nothing against a ban on assault weapons. I think lifting the ban was a cheap, political in-your-face move to begin with. I have nothing against banning high capacity clips. Nothing against banning handguns. But pretending that it will curb this kind of act is simple nonsense.

Most of the ways I can come up with to actually curb these shootings smell deeply of secret police and invasion of privacy. But there are some approaches that could help. None of them involve bans on guns. I understand that people want to "take action" and do something--anything--to feel they have some control over these tragedies. But if we actually want something effective done, then focusing on the guns is simply ineffective and dilutes the capability to do something constructive.

[tautologies]

Obviously by now there are a lot of weapons out there...but if there are no weapons around a mentally unstable person, and it is relatively hard to get it most of them would not be able to acquire one.

It is actually possible to do several things. Limiting weapons is one. I would think gun owners would be positive to setting restrictions to gun ownership.

For people that shoot when angry, if the gun is not in their possession they will not shoot because the time that it takes for them to get a gun will leave time to cool off.

It might not hinder all, but certainly lower the probability.

[Bean]

I'm at a loss as to how you arrive at that conclusion based on the Heller decision. 

I think you understand how what I quoted above will be used in the months going forward.  The title of the article I posted was "Gun-Control Backers See No High Court Hurdle for Laws".

I do understand that, what I do not get is how the Heller decision supports, your statement, "what has been proposed here".  This is frankly because I fail to see where anything substantive has been proposed on the gun-control side of the argument in this post.

[stoneaxe]

But an old school shotgun.  You've got to constantly reload.  One of the adults would have tackled that kid and there would have been many fewer casualties.  That's the entire point of the discussion related to gun control.  If you can't concede that then there is no conversation.   No one is going to walk into a building planning to shoot a bunch of people with an old fashioned shot gun if they also have the option of using a high capacity magazine rifle.  

So you think the typical female teacher is going to run at a guy with a shotgun and pistols and tackle him and save the day......

Let's say we eliminate all guns. What does the crazy do then when he wants to get back at all of society. Not for nothing but when it comes to killing massive amounts of people...nothing works as well as a bomb. Without changing our culture and the violence our kids are steeped in almost from birth we accomplish nothing by gun control.
Guns are readily available to the car bombers of the middle east and elsewhere...yet they prefer explosives to bullets to kill as many as possible and spread fear. Be careful what you wish for.

[Kevin]

But an old school shotgun.  You've got to constantly reload.  One of the adults would have tackled that kid and there would have been many fewer casualties.  That's the entire point of the discussion related to gun control.  If you can't concede that then there is no conversation.   No one is going to walk into a building planning to shoot a bunch of people with an old fashioned shot gun if they also have the option of using a high capacity magazine rifle.  

So you think the typical female teacher is going to run at a guy with a shotgun and pistols and tackle him and save the day......

Don't be so disingenuous.  I was specifically refuting the statement that you've all refused to refute, which is that this guy could probably have killed more people with an "old fashioned shotgun" than he did with a high capacity semi automatic rifle.  There's just no way.  And there were heroes there at the scene.  Adult teachers who gave their lives trying to protect the kids.  They charged him to try to stop him, and they were shot and killed.  Yes I think a typical female teacher would run at a guy shooting children with an old fashioned shot gun, and they would have had a much higher chance of succeeding.   It's not even worth arguing about it's so obvious.

[Admin]

I'm at a loss as to how you arrive at that conclusion based on the Heller decision. 

I think you understand how what I quoted above will be used in the months going forward.  The title of the article I posted was "Gun-Control Backers See No High Court Hurdle for Laws".

I do understand that, what I do not get is how the Heller decision supports, your statement, "what has been proposed here".  This is frankly because I fail to see where anything substantive has been proposed on the gun-control side of the argument in this post.

Let me repost in this thread:

Hold people personally accountable for violence done with their guns, stolen or otherwise.  The right is to bear arms.  It is a responsibility as well. 

No assault weapons. 

[PonoBill]

Don't be so disingenuous.  I was specifically refuting the statement that you've all refused to refute, which is that this guy could probably have killed more people with an "old fashioned shotgun" than he did with a high capacity semi automatic rifle.  There's just no way.  

No one but you is refuting the statement because you're wrong. A shortened shotgun is a weapon of choice in close quarters. It's called a street sweeper for a reason. You can easily make one from any automatic or pump shotgun. Six shots is easy, ten or more is also if you're just a little handy with tools. There are 40 pellets in a 3" 12 gauge #4 buckshot round. That's 240 lead pellets sprayed in six shots. At close range it's one of the most devastating weapons available. You don't even have to aim it, just point and spray.

[Kevin]

Don't be so disingenuous.  I was specifically refuting the statement that you've all refused to refute, which is that this guy could probably have killed more people with an "old fashioned shotgun" than he did with a high capacity semi automatic rifle.  There's just no way.  

No one but you is refuting the statement because you're wrong. A shortened shotgun is a weapon of choice in close quarters. It's called a street sweeper for a reason. You can easily make one from any automatic or pump shotgun. Six shots is easy, ten or more is also if you're just a little handy with tools. There are 40 pellets in a 3" 12 gauge #4 buckshot round. That's 240 lead pellets sprayed in six shots. At close range it's one of the most devastating weapons available.

An "old fashioned" shot gun is not an automatic or pump shotgun.  An automatic or pump shotgun would be a new fashioned shot gun.  I did not coin the term "old fashioned shotgun," the original poster did.  If one were to make up the term "old fashioned" shotgun, one would do so in order to distiguish from some other sort of shot gun, presumably one that is newer in design.  The old shot guns shot a couple of shells, side by side or over under.

So, given the original statement, this kid with an old fashioned shot gun could do more damage that this kid with a semi automatic high capacity rifle... I don't think so.