Today's mass shooting in the US

Screeeech said:
It's so stupid how all the major news outlets are now delving into this guys history and playing Youtube videos of him rapping and dancing, or whatever...

It's just creating this self-sustaining catalyst of mass shootings, where somebody somewhere who's on the edge, upset, angry or whatever will be watching and secretly getting off on the carnage and horror, one of them sooner or later will be the next shooter.

It's so frustrating to watch,
Click to expand...

As long as the arms manufactures get to sell millions of weapons and rounds and the politicians get their slice it will never change. Its blood for $
 
"What did you do with your life Grandad?"

"I spent 18 hours a day on an internet forum called Overclockers decrying the laws of a foreign country, far away across a huge ocean"

"Why"

"Err, err, too many questions, go and check your guns and the ammunition safe, there's another riot kicking off in town".

;)
 
Chris Wilson said:
"What did you do with your life Grandad?"

"I spent 18 hours a day on an internet forum called Overclockers decrying the laws of a foreign country, far away across a huge ocean"

"Why"

"Err, err, too many questions, go and check your guns and the ammunition safe, there's another riot kicking off in town".

;)
Click to expand...

The internet was designed with the sole purpose of arguing with Randoms about **** that doesn't really matter.
 
*Suspect in July 4 Highland Park Mass Shooting Pre Planned Attack for Several Weeks, Official Says in Press Briefing
*Suspect in July 4 Highland Park Mass Shooting Purchased Rifle Legally
*Suspect in July 4 Highland Park Mass Shooting Fired More Than 70 Rounds
*Suspect in July 4 Highland Park Mass Shooting Was Dressed As a Woman During Attack to Hide Facial Tattoos
*Suspect in July 4 Highland Park Mass Shooting Purchased Another Rifle Located in Vehicle
*Suspect in July 4 Highland Park Mass Shooting Was Acting by Himself
*Suspect in July 4 Highland Park Mass Shooting Bought Weapons Locally Within Region
*Suspect in July 4 Highland Park Mass Shooting Was in Possession of a Firearm, Another Rifle, and Other Weapons
*Highland Park Mass Shooting Appeared to Be Random, No Motivation of Race or Religion
*Suspect in July 4 Highland Park Mass Shooting Used Weapon Similar to AR-15
*Authorities on Tuesday Afternoon Aim to Reveal Charges Against Suspect in July 4 Highland Park Mass Shooting — Press Briefing
https://youtu.be/9hfmlh_CG3E
 
Last edited:
Chris Wilson said:
"What did you do with your life Grandad?"

"I spent 18 hours a day on an internet forum called Overclockers decrying the laws of a foreign country, far away across a huge ocean"

"Why"

"Err, err, too many questions, go and check your guns and the ammunition safe, there's another riot kicking off in town".

;)
Click to expand...

Says the man who spends hours a day on OCUK arguing about **** he can't change.
 
Can't change?? You're having a laugh, I have been blamed here for Brexit, for the Conservative government, for encourging anti immigration rhetoric, and the deportation of illegals, for support of more free places in "posh" public and grammar schools, these are things my votes have helped change, and that I have argued for on here, and that's just off the top of my head. What have your arguments and votes effected a change over? ;) You don't even have a say in US gun or abortion laws, yet you dissect and whine about them incessantly :) Labour haven't been in power or a viable alternative since Adam was a lad, yet you talk about them like the next coming! ;)
 
potatolord said:
Pretty sure Edward iii's law mandated practice, under supervision, not ownership.

I believe that has never been repealed.

Apologies if I got this wrong, it's been years since my archery thing...
Click to expand...

It has been over-written by later laws, which effectively repealed it. Maybe not a de jure repeal, but a de facto one. Much later laws. 20th century IIRC. It hung around as an unenforced law for ages. I looked it up once, out of curiosity.

As for what exactly was mandatory, I'm not sure. Men in England in those days were obliged to be ready for war (though peasant levies were far less common than they're often portrayed as being), but I don't know the details of what equipment they were required to own themselves. You may well be right. It would be feasible for the authorities to supply enough bows. A simple bow is quick and easy to make, compared to many other items of military equipment. A modern gun isn't.
 
Chris Wilson said:
Can't change?? You're having a laugh, I have been blamed here for Brexit, for the Conservative government, for encourging anti immigration rhetoric, and the deportation of illegals, for support of more free places in "posh" public and grammar schools, these are things my votes have helped change, and that I have argued for on here, and that's just off the top of my head. What have your arguments and votes effected a change over? ;) You don't even have a say in US gun or abortion laws, yet you dissect and whine about them incessantly :) Labour haven't been in power or a viable alternative since Adam was a lad, yet you talk about them like the next coming! ;)
Click to expand...

I'm glad you added a ;) as your support for those polices has nothing to do with your inability to change anything. As individuals we are powerless to change anything. You can argue your support for those policies on here but our leaders don't give a toss what you think.
 
Colonel_Klinck said:
I'm glad you added a ;) as your support for those polices has nothing to do with your inability to change anything. As individuals we are powerless to change anything. You can argue your support for those policies on here but our leaders don't give a toss what you think.
Click to expand...


Utter nonsense, they spend a fortune trying to sway the way "we" think. Remember the logos on the `bus the Left went on and on about? The election budget money, (allegedly in excess over the stipulated maximum limit), spent on advertising? Yet you brass cheeked say they don't give a toss what we think? The vast amounts spent canvasssing? <LOL>
 
Angilion said:
It has been over-written by later laws, which effectively repealed it. Maybe not a de jure repeal, but a de facto one. Much later laws. 20th century IIRC. It hung around as an unenforced law for ages. I looked it up once, out of curiosity.

As for what exactly was mandatory, I'm not sure. Men in England in those days were obliged to be ready for war (though peasant levies were far less common than they're often portrayed as being), but I don't know the details of what equipment they were required to own themselves. You may well be right. It would be feasible for the authorities to supply enough bows. A simple bow is quick and easy to make, compared to many other items of military equipment. A modern gun isn't.
Click to expand...

Bow manufacture was fairly skilled work and required high quality materials.

There was another law (from memory) mandated ships bringing in Italian wine had to supply a number a yew staves for bow making, gratis. Italian yew was the best.

The more you read on this stuff, the more impressive the whole thing gets.
 
*Authorities Name Highland Park Mass Shooting Victims Who Died, Also Confirm Seventh Death in Shooting
*Highland Park Mass Shooting Suspect Was Reported for Attempted Suicide in 2019, Official Says in Press Briefing
*Highland Park Mass Shooting Suspect’s Relative Reported Suspect Made Threats in 2019 Saying He Will “Kill Everyone”; Weapons Were Removed From His Home
*Highland Park Mass Shooting Suspect Bought 5 Firearms
*Highland Park Mass Shooting Suspect Will Appear in Court Wednesday if Charges Filed Later on Tuesday
*Highland Park Mass Shooting Suspect’s Family Member Had Reported Earlier He Was Being Threatening
 
Last edited:
Chris Wilson said:
Utter nonsense, they spend a fortune trying to sway the way "we" think. Remember the logos on the `bus the Left went on and on about? The election budget money, (allegedly in excess over the stipulated maximum limit), spent on advertising? Yet you brass cheeked say they don't give a toss what we think? The vast amounts spent canvasssing? <LOL>
Click to expand...

No they spend money on getting the masses or enough of them to voter for them. You, Chris Wilson are nothing to them. If you think they give a toss about you as an individual you are kidding yourself. All they care about is staying in power and wielding that power to make them and their friends rich. Today is a perfect example of that. Now if you were a party donor then yes they would care about what you think.
 
Last edited:
Sankari said:
12 mass shootings in a single weekend. What a great place to live.

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think too much focus is on the "mass" part of shootings, America has a lot of murders and shootings where one person is the victim, they far out weigh the mass shootings, most of the time the weapon is a pistol. With the way the media reports it you'd think the AR-15 is responsible for the majority of gun deaths, but actually it's a very low figure, around 3% I believe.
 
Last edited:
Roar87 said:
I think too much focus is on the "mass" part of shootings, America has a lot of murders and shootings where one person is the victim, they far out weigh the mass shootings, most of the time the weapon is a pistol. With the way the media reports it you'd think the AR-15 is responsible for the majority of fun deaths, but actually it's a very low figure, around 3% I believe.
Click to expand...
Oh that's ok then.
 
potatolord said:
Bow manufacture was fairly skilled work and required high quality materials.

There was another law (from memory) mandated ships bringing in Italian wine had to supply a number a yew staves for bow making, gratis. Italian yew was the best.

The more you read on this stuff, the more impressive the whole thing gets.
Click to expand...

But that was for the best bows. The scenario being referred to is when the authorities are required to suddenly supply weapons to thousands or tens of thousands of conscripts in order to have an army when civilians aren't allowed to own weapons. In that scenario, it would be a rush job on the cheap. That's not particularly skilled work, not for a simple bow, and wouldn't be using the best materials.

In reality, yes, there was a lot of skilled work with the best materials. Because in reality peasant levies of conscripts were uncommon because they weren't very good. Most of the archers (and other soldiers) fielded by the famous later medieval English armies were professional soldiers who owned their own weapons and armour (the usual kit for an archer in a later medieval English army included a sword and a buckler and a helmet and some amount of body armour). Medieval weapon restriction laws were usually about carrying weapons in public (rather than about owning weapons) and were usually very local (e.g. within the boundaries of a town or city).

It's the scale and professionalism that makes it impressive. Longbows were nothing new (the oldest surviving longbow is ~9000 years old and they almost certainly go back further than that). Other cultures fielded non-trivial numbers of archers in battle. Other countries made significant developments to longbows and their use in battle (most relevantly in this case, some of the Welsh countries). But England ramped everything about it up much further. More powerful longbows, but more importantly scale. Ludicrous numbers of highly trained archers and mass production of bows and arrows. There are records of stores of a million arrows. Entire wagon trains accompanying English armies just for the carrying of enough arrows. >10,000 archers in an army, each with plenty of arrows. The scale was astonishing for the time. It drove other changes too, particularly the pace of armour development. Facing such massed archery with those bows in anything less than plate armour was bad news.
 
Angilion said:
But that was for the best bows. The scenario being referred to is when the authorities are required to suddenly supply weapons to thousands or tens of thousands of conscripts in order to have an army when civilians aren't allowed to own weapons. In that scenario, it would be a rush job on the cheap. That's not particularly skilled work, not for a simple bow, and wouldn't be using the best materials.

In reality, yes, there was a lot of skilled work with the best materials. Because in reality peasant levies of conscripts were uncommon because they weren't very good. Most of the archers (and other soldiers) fielded by the famous later medieval English armies were professional soldiers who owned their own weapons and armour (the usual kit for an archer in a later medieval English army included a sword and a buckler and a helmet and some amount of body armour). Medieval weapon restriction laws were usually about carrying weapons in public (rather than about owning weapons) and were usually very local (e.g. within the boundaries of a town or city).

It's the scale and professionalism that makes it impressive. Longbows were nothing new (the oldest surviving longbow is ~9000 years old and they almost certainly go back further than that). Other cultures fielded non-trivial numbers of archers in battle. Other countries made significant developments to longbows and their use in battle (most relevantly in this case, some of the Welsh countries). But England ramped everything about it up much further. More powerful longbows, but more importantly scale. Ludicrous numbers of highly trained archers and mass production of bows and arrows. There are records of stores of a million arrows. Entire wagon trains accompanying English armies just for the carrying of enough arrows. >10,000 archers in an army, each with plenty of arrows. The scale was astonishing for the time. It drove other changes too, particularly the pace of armour development. Facing such massed archery with those bows in anything less than plate armour was bad news.
Click to expand...

Facing a large body of bodkin equipped archers in any armour was bad news.

There is a common belief that archers often aimed for the face (when they weren't shooting for area effect), and a fair amount of evidence to suggest this was the case. Closed face helmets weren't particularly common, from memory, due to the disadvantage of vision loss.

Edit: Hugh Soar is a good author if you want to explore this. Robert Hardy's Longbow is (was? Been a while!) seen as definitive, but is hard going.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom