Shoot a camera, not a gun

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well I grew up around guns as my Dad was a hunter years ago and I tried a few times but hunting isn't my thing. I have a hard enough time stepping on a bug yet alone killing an animal. But I own guns and yes there has been a rash of home invasion in the last couple of years. I have a friend that was awakened in the night last summer to find a man standing in his house. As economic times are hard burglaries are way up. With the price of scrap cooper many are having their A/C units stripped.

I can't remember the statistic but there is a very good chance your house will be broken into in your lifetime. I am 53 and it's happened twice. I have a family to protect. I think the answer is more security at the schools. There are around 270 million guns in the US and a huge number un registered. I would imaging rounding them up would be a job. Not to mention the cost of Gov't buying them all up.
I also like to target practice and it is no worse hobby than hitting a white ball around 18 holes and sand traps, just sayin'
PS, My wife has been attacked twice in her lifetime. Two different men and years apart.
 
The real problem isn't the "loonies". They might have a shooting spree every few years, but the vast majority of gun deaths in the U.S. have nothing to do with shooting rampages. So far as I know most gun injuries and deaths in the U.S. are accidental. Basically people playing or fiddling with guns. This guy killed 20 children, well around 100 children on average are killed in the U.S. each year due to accidents involving guns. So where's the outrage over that?

I think the biggest problem is that people in the U.S. have no respect or appreciation for guns. When you don't even have to register your weapons, or pass some sort of proficiency or safety test - then why would anybody have any respect for the weapons? Imagine what the roads would be like if nobody had to register their car or take a driver's test. Yeah, pretty awful. Yet we're cavalier towards killing machines, and the NRA spends millions of dollars to defend gun owners "rights" to be stupid and careless.

I'd also add that the kind of rampages we see, like with Virginia Tech, and here in Connecticut, would not be possible with a shotgun or a normal revolver. You just cannot kill that many people that quickly unless you had them all lined up. We need to put our heads on straight here instead of sticking our heads in the sand. While some guns have legitimate uses, some do not, and should not be available to the general public (let alone a general public with no appreciation for the safety of others or themselves).
 
@tunalegs, you may not be able to kill that many people with those forms of fire-arms, yet you are still able to kill...

it's not an acceptable answer.
 
Jubb Jubb said:
@tunalegs, you may not be able to kill that many people with those forms of fire-arms, yet you are still able to kill...

it's not an acceptable answer.
Click to expand...

Yes but you can kill people with a car. But a car has legitimate uses outside of running over people on sidewalks.

One can rationally justify the use of a shotgun, but I cannot think of any logical argument for selling semi automatic assault rifles over the counter to the general public.
 
I wasn't going to bother commenting. I don't live in the USA and you have a democracy over there and have chosen the course you have taken - but I'd suggest that, if you wish to address clearly the problem rather than worry about it ineffectively as appears to be going on here, consider that this event was a symptom of two main areas of concern.

Firstly, there is no effective health support for patients with mental health problems (this is according to the US medical profession, not me - I don't live there and will not visit, remember). One possible reason is that the health system is profit-driven rather than patient-driven - there is nothing wrong with that; it is a choice that was democratically taken, no problem with that.

Secondly, there was easy access to a military grade weapon* for the ill individual. If he hadn't used a firearm he might have used petrol/fire, or a vehicle or who knows what - but the weapon he chose was a particularly difficult one to defend against. The Bushmaster (apparently what was used?) is semi-automatic and has been democratically decided to be appropriate for civilian use, and there is nothing wrong with that.

Put the two, perfectly reasonable, factors together and they will occasionally magnify each other. This was also chosen to be an acceptable risk, during legislation.

So US citizens have the choice to consider ways of adjusting the two areas I mentioned to reduce the likelihood of another event, and/or you protect various vulnerable locations to reduce the effectiveness of future attacks, and/or to sympathise deeply with the unfortunate families (as any sensible person will certainly do) and continue with the status quo.

I can't see any options apart from those three - can anyone else??

*Note, I spent nine years in the British army, serving on several continents, so no need to tell me that full-auto was missing. Thank you.
 
frank-grumman said:
Why, Roger, do you make the assumption that ammo is "a wasting asset?" Why do you assume ti will get used? If I had X amount of ammo on Day1, why would I not have it on day X + n??? Ammunition expenditure rate varies as a direct function of the need to expend it and context in which it is to be expended.

For those of us with exceptional combat handgun proficiency, my use of Air-Soft pellets in force-on-force scenarios is all I need to maintain proficiency. With respect to other firearms some folks have, they have sufficient stock already on hand so that even the expenditure of some requisite # of rounds they have already determined to be needed for maintaining proficiency at, say 600 to 1000 yards, will hardly put a dent in their stores.

You make the mistaken assumption that all firearms owners are out on the range everyday shooting up their supply. Not true. You also may be making the unwarranted assumption that shooting up mega #'s of rounds is requisite to maintaining proficiency. Not true. So, ban or control, whatever. Right, we sure do control driving with driver's licenses HAHA. Ask the LEO in the area I provide consultation to. The, to use the politically correct language, "undocumented immigrants" are driving amok, w/o driver's licenses - now that's real control :D Indeed, such failed efforts typically lead to a ban. Banning is de facto control, nicht wahr? The forthcoming and again impotent hi-cap magazine ban, "assault" (sic) weapon ban, will have the same effect as the previous one. NONE AT ALL.

Happy shooting :)
Click to expand...
Dear Frank,

Highlight 1: So... You're saying that ammunition DOESN'T get used?

Highlight 2: well, I'm not on the range every day, so no, I don't think I am making any unwarranted assumptions. You seem to be, though.

Also, in many countries X rounds per year on the range is required to retain a firearms permit: probably not a bad idea. Nor is it entirely an appalling idea to restrict the amount of ammunition that can be held.

Highlight 3: Logically, the classic omitted middle. Yes, banning is control, but control is not banning.

What in earth are "exceptional combat handgun proficiency" and "force-on-force scenarios"?

Cheers,

R.
 
For every single killing by a lone gunman, there have been at least 50,000 killings by the governments some of you think are here to protect you from a lone gunman.
 
tunalegs said:
The real problem isn't the "loonies". They might have a shooting spree every few years, but the vast majority of gun deaths in the U.S. have nothing to do with shooting rampages. So far as I know most gun injuries and deaths in the U.S. are accidental. Basically people playing or fiddling with guns. This guy killed 20 children, well around 100 children on average are killed in the U.S. each year due to accidents involving guns. So where's the outrage over that? . . . . . .
Click to expand...
Hey, stop trying to introduce rational arguments! No fair!

Yes, it is fair to say that there might have been 20 fewer this year without one loony, just as it's fair to say that terrorism is less of a risk than DUI/DWI or indeed being struck by lightning. But a lot of people prefer to try to reduce trivial risks, often at considerable risk to personal freedom, rather than making the slightest attempt to reduce REAL risks. Such as, for example, people driving without enough sleep. This can be as dangerous as driving while intoxicated (DWI) or driving under the influence (DUI), but only wimps sleep.

Cheers,

R.
 
A person with mental issues, having access to an assault rifle.

One of them two issues has to be addressed, it is simple as that.

Mind you, a couple of days before this happened another nutter armed with a knife/machete did the same in China, though apparently Chinese kids don’t matter that much (another story, apologies).

So, I believe that the emphasis has to be put on *who* is allowed a weapon, not what weapon that will be.

Against most people who are caught unaware any kind of weapon is lethal.
 
Yeah, I cannot "stomach" killing an animal either, though I've done it for food as well as for training. Not a lot different from fishing, you know. Toss in that line, hook that fish, pull it out, have your mate grab a snap or two all the while the fish is suffocating. :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom