Soldato
Another school shooting in the US
- Thread starter .Griff.
- Start date
Sure, but they're still lethal 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug
The United States Federal Air Marshal Service tested and used the Glaser Safety Slug extensively in the 1970s and 80s on board commercial passenger aircraft to defend against hijackers.[6][7]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glaser_Safety_Slug
The United States Federal Air Marshal Service tested and used the Glaser Safety Slug extensively in the 1970s and 80s on board commercial passenger aircraft to defend against hijackers.[6][7]
good shoot = legally justifiable. 13 rounds or whatever was perfectly justifiable to stop him.
They seem to have fully loaded mags + what appears to be 2 spare in a pouch in this pic, why would anyone need NINETY bullets? Wait... 107 bullets because there is at least 17 in the glock as well.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/julesmattssonphoto/7402413910/
Why not ban stupidity too while we're at it.
It's the people who are grossly over-estimating the power of handguns who need to stop watching films.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=tku8YI68-JA#t=836s
Last edited:
A habit?
If they're there specifically as an anti-terrorism measure... i.e. deterring (and possible having to react to) a potential Mumbai style attacks then its not exactly inappropriate.
Not sure how the fuzz do things but IMO you can never have too many pens in your body armour
Deffo bring at least 5 diff colours of OHP pens if going to war...
and plenty of templates, aide memoires etc. in your nirex folder...
Soldato
Maybe the NRA should insist that everyone is armed by compulsory order. Then all the good men with guns could shoot all the bad men with guns.
It is all so simple when you get into their mindset.
It is all so simple when you get into their mindset.
I do wonder about the 2nd Amendment fundamentalist types... Some Americans still believe in the principle that it is there so that the government fears its people, so that they have the ability to stand up to the federal government should they choose to.
The problem would seem to be that there doesn't seem to be any other legislation to support americans in actually engaging in armed conflict against the federal government - this would seem to be a bit of an oversight if people are to exercise these rights.
I wonder what the views of the 2nd amendment/NRA types would have been if Japanese/American citizens had exercised their 2nd amendment rights when they were being rounded up during WW2... perhaps they had the right to fight the Federal government? Or Arab americans in the aftermath of 9/11 - I wonder how many right wing NRA members would have spoken out in favour of Arab Americans resisting the authorities with arms when they were being rounded up and detained.
The whole thing, while reasonable over 200 years ago, doesn't seem to be too reasonable an idea in a modern democracy.
The problem would seem to be that there doesn't seem to be any other legislation to support americans in actually engaging in armed conflict against the federal government - this would seem to be a bit of an oversight if people are to exercise these rights.
I wonder what the views of the 2nd amendment/NRA types would have been if Japanese/American citizens had exercised their 2nd amendment rights when they were being rounded up during WW2... perhaps they had the right to fight the Federal government? Or Arab americans in the aftermath of 9/11 - I wonder how many right wing NRA members would have spoken out in favour of Arab Americans resisting the authorities with arms when they were being rounded up and detained.
The whole thing, while reasonable over 200 years ago, doesn't seem to be too reasonable an idea in a modern democracy.
Personally I can't see anyone handing in a $3,000 weapon, they would just 'lose' it.
They also tried the gun control thing in Australia.
Latest research on the issue concludes: "The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence."
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
I don't think that means a great deal myself, because the cultures are different.
Actually if you really want to kill lots of schoolchildren, try dynamite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
(or Tannerite can be bought online in the US if you failed Chemistry O-level and can't make your own explosives).
Incidentally (to those mocking the idea earlier with hilarious memes
but who don't have the balls to reply), the Israelis tried arming school personnel after the Ma’a lot school massacre in 1974, since then there has been no successful mass murder at an Israeli school. Peru and the Philippines do the same thing with similar results 
I can't see why they don't bulletproof the classroom doors, it would limit the number killed at least?
Personally I can't see anyone handing in a $3,000 weapon, they would just 'lose' it.
They also tried the gun control thing in Australia.
Latest research on the issue concludes: "The hypothesis that the removal of a large number of firearms owned by civilians [would lead to fewer gun-related deaths] is not borne out by the evidence."
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1736501,00.html
I don't think that means a great deal myself, because the cultures are different.
Actually if you really want to kill lots of schoolchildren, try dynamite:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
(or Tannerite can be bought online in the US if you failed Chemistry O-level and can't make your own explosives).
Incidentally (to those mocking the idea earlier with hilarious memes
I can't see why they don't bulletproof the classroom doors, it would limit the number killed at least?
There was a piece in The Australian by John Howard after the shooting in the cinema earlier this year about his decision to crack down on gun controls after some kid went on a spree there in 1995 and how it had inarguably worked.
Anyone who thinks introducing tighter gun controls now won't reduce gun crime in the long term, even if it does little immediately is kidding themselves.
Armed guards in the school just puts another few hundred thousand guns in the proximity of children, what's to say that one of these guards won't flip out and shoot a load of kids then themselves? What would they do then? I saw one of the proposals was to arm the teachers so they can 'better protect the kids' but what happens when one of the teachers flips out and shoots all the kids?
The stance of giving people guns to protect themselves ends with training school children how to use a gun properly and then having guns in the classroom against the teacher.
Or you could just remove guns from the equation entirely.
They could bullet proof all classroom doors in all schools in America...
In fact why not fit bullet proof glass, doors etc.. too all places where groups of people congregate...
Its about as sensible as your - let the school staff carry weapons idea early
The reality is that the easy availability of these sorts of weapons makes incidents like these more likely to happen.
If the killer didn't have easy access an assault rifle then there he'd have had less chance of success, if he didn't have semi-auto hand guns then he'd also have less chance of success.... if armed with just a shot gun or bolt action rifle then there are good odds he wouldn't have been able to kill so many...
Its not really rocket science, in the UK a 20 year old autistic loner would have hardly any chance of getting hold of an assault rifle and it would be pretty unlikely that he'd be able to get a functioning handgun in good working order (let alone a glock and a sig)... Chances are that if the killer lived in the UK the incident wouldn't have occurred in the first place.
Soldato
That's the entire problem though isn't it.
How do you remove guns from the equation in a country which is obsessed by them, and has so many firearms of all kinds in circulation?
I agree entirely with your post, but I can't see anything lasting changing. Some watered down bill will be passed which limits the sale of certain kinds of weapons while doing nothing about the vast numbers already out there. Predictably this will have no effect, the following administration will undo the legislation and we'll be back where we started.
What is needed is a cultural shift in America's relationship with firearms, and I see no way that is going to happen
Caporegime
Yes we did, and it worked.
...in a study produced by two members of a pro-gun lobby group:
And the best they can do is claim 'well, the figures were going down anyway.' Seriously? Some of the figures were going down slowly. Some weren't going down at all. There was no guarantee they'd stay down, either. But look how fast they dropped after the new legislation came in:
(Source).
This can't be shrugged off by 'they were going down anyway.'
That article is ridiculous for other reasons as well. It claims:
'Trampling all opposition'? What opposition? Australians demanded tighter gun laws, and Howard gave us what we wanted. A poll taken at the time showed that 85% of Australians supported Howard's reforms (which were actually based on legislation proposed in the late 1980s) and some wanted him to go even further.
Howard did not 'trample all opposition.' There was no opposition to trample. The Australian federal government does not have the power to draft gun control legislation, so Howard couldn't have 'trampled all opposition' even if he'd wanted to!
The new laws were introduced by the states and territories, which collaborated with Howard to standardise firearm legislation across the country. It was an epic victory for the will of the people.
One more point: the article omits to mention that Martin Bryant was a violent schizophrenic, and that he was captured alive by police. He wasn't just some teenager with a bad case of the blues.
Incidentally (to those mocking the idea earlier with hilarious memes
Here in Australia we have never armed school personnel and we've never had a school shooting. Ever. Not even one.
All teachers should be armed? - Of course, the big word use for gun ownership is "freedom". And yet we seemingly seem to be seeing people freedom not to carry a gun being taken away. I'm sure teachers don't want to walk around with gun? Yet, here we have people using "freedom" as the excuse to try and force them into classrooms.
Very odd and sad really.