School shooting in CT

Post Reply New Topic

That's a common thought, though it's been shown to be incorrect in actual events: Charles Whitman with a deer bolt rifle shooting at people in the open and Derrick Bird using a double barrel shotgun and rabbit bolt rifle to kill people as he drove from place to place. These firearms are something that can be acquired almost anywhere in the world (nearly all countries allow break action shotguns and bolt-action rifles).

People tend to freeze in these situations (which makes sense due to most people having no training), so being able to fire more than one shot a second doesn't have much use, especially when you're in confined spaces where people can't escape (again though in Whitman's case, many people were still killed even though there was heaps of room to flee and find cover; a lack of training, which again, is understandable). It generally takes a second to get a good sight picture anyway; 3 fast shots on someone compared to 1 aimed are both just as bad.

Security guards seem like a good choice to help stop these things from getting worst (it won't stop them starting, and I don't think anything can); I don't see why it'd be too much to have a couple of armed guards in each school enclosed in their own station who can respond to an active shooter. It'd provide employment and a feeling of security, especially if funded privately.

Last edited by Dillogic on 18 Dec 2012, 10:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Personal protection during times of civil unrest, Nostromo, is the honest to Gods reason why people want them.

I think it does make sense though coming from where the US was founded. Whilst I'm sure it'll never be applicable at all that people will have to fight others, i.e., another civil war, you can see how the upbringing of people in an environment that speaks of these things can foster a desire in people to own something that can help them survive against a tyrannical government, the "Red coats".

Though the disparity between military and civilians is so great that no firearm would help the civilian population if an army fought them. Just have a look at the Iraqi insurgents who were extremely well armed for "civilians", and they had assault rifles, machine guns, rocket launchers, mortars, rockets and other various military grade small arms and crew served weapons. They resorted to high explosives as improvised landmines because it was usually suicide to fight a modern military with small arms.

Obviously there's a large disconnect between those who think an AR-15 will do them any good, but I can still see why they'd feel the need to own one given how anti-tyrannical government the US was and still is.

It's more about the Doomsday Culture than fear of the government. Some people believe US is on the brink of collapse and there will be great civil unrest. Survivalists think if they have enough guns and bullets, they will survive it. They don't want the government to ban any high powered rifles because these are what will do them the most good during times of civil unrest when cops and other enforcement personnel will be able to protect everyone.

But when you can just pull the trigger it must make it easier to continously select, aim and fire? If you have to stop and use a bolt or something it disrupts that and therefore makes for a slower and more disruptive job.

In New Zealand where I live they use a term MSSA "Military-style semi-automatic" for these type of guns and these are controlled.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military-s ... -automatic
To be able to have them you must meet these criteria:



I think Pistols are similarly controlled. I have never even seen a MSSA or Pistol here myself however I have seen and used ordinary hunting rifles with a bolt ages ago.
I think the sort of restrictions above are a fair balance between letting people who have an interest in those guns have them vs the issue of Public safety and it controls the numbers of these firearms in distribution to a degree.

Generally, you can put more rounds on target with an autoloader than a manual repeater, but as above, it's probably more to do with the location and the offender's ability that determine how many people are killed (in addition to any resistance offered, which will affect it the most; hence, the idea for security guards). I've had vast experience* with both over the years, from semi-automatic pistols and double action revolvers to manually operated long arms (where I live in Oz, auto-loading rifles are restricted to primary produce, like feral animal control, before I turned 18), and I couldn't say with any certainty that one would offer an advantage over the other (other than that one can conceal handguns). I know for a fact that recreational shooters with Lee-Enfield bolt-action rifles (SMLE No.1 MKIII) can do as well as those with auto-loading rifles in competitive events (military type).

*Interest

The jury is out whether restrictions, such as registration (rather than just a background check to determine if someone has a prior crime or adjudicated mental illness), does anything. I admit that it seems like a sensible thing at first glance, but I really don't have any hope that it'd affect these things considering the current amount of firearms in circulation. Then, there's nothing saying that a police officer wouldn't go crazy all of a sudden with an auto-loader (it's happened. One of the worst massacres in history was by one).

I have no idea what'd help, and I mean really help, other than armed security. They provide security guards for money, why not children? Children are the future earners after all.

Sigh..........

You said "a person" first. What should that tell you? How 'bout it takes a person to operate the weapon. Or one better; the person is actually the weapon and the rifle an extension of the weapon. The rifle can do nothing on its own. You may as well say that we should all kill ourselves.


You don't know what legitimate is. In your world of course it's not legitimate..

Dillogic wrote:

Registration is a big stepping stone to confiscation. That's about all it provides in effect and confiscation is an effect I can live without.
I'd think that as an Austrian you'd know that from experience.....

In case you missed the first shot in a self defense scenario. With a manual loader, it may take a few seconds to load more ammo and you could be dead before you finish.

As for confiscation, bad idea. There may be more uproar, rioting, looting, stabbing, break INS and even a small chance of a civil war as a few people may be thinking and writing about. With 90 guns per 100 Americans, I personally believe that a second CW is possible.

It makes it easier to confiscate when things are registered, yes (do they keep the records of the background checks in the US though? I recall reading that it was possible to trace what people bought there, so they'd still know all the same, even if it was a little harder).

Australian. I wasn't around during the change in legislation (I was in high school in the late 90s); all the firearms I've acquired have been under the licensing scheme (though pistols have always been licensed since around WW1).

I don't think most rational people want to confiscate firearms that they consider "sporting" after the emotions go (in any country), rather the ones that people apply negative connotations to, which are defensive handguns and modern military pattern rifles (though of civilian standards). Out of ignorance, of course, but as I said, they like to think they're doing something (even if it has no actual verifiable positive effect in regards to things like murder and suicide rates), and it's an easy target for the emotional mind, and many of the arguments for this make some sense to begin with (though ultimately factors that will have no affect on these things in reality).

And the ultimate argument, you don't need one, is applicable. I don't need this Coke in front of me, which probably is a part of many deaths, though things such as exercise can help against that. Sadly, I don't see anything helping against massacres and other violent crimes. Luckily, they're so rare to be of no real concern to almost all people.

I said 'if', perhaps someone has an argument otherwise.

the point i was making to the poster was that whatever you,me,the us military in 1944 says is or is not an assault rifle has no bearing on laws applicable to assault rifles.the definition of the term would be defined by congrees when such a bill would pass.

where as the law that no felon shall posses any centerfire or rimfire guns is absolute,a gun is either rimfire,centerfire or muzzleloading.the clinton assault rifle ban of the 90's did not apply to what many people difine as an assault rifle

assault rifle is an adgative not a noun

all states in the US beside alaska and vermont already have gun registration

also just because there is a military definition of something doesnt make something completley defined.

for instance the u.s army and the massachusetts state police have different definitions of the term colonial.the military and civilian courts have different definitions for things like probable cause and reasonable expectation of privacy

Legally the ATF form 4473 is not a registration form but the potential exists for it to be abused as that. You can always lie and say that the gun was destroyed and scrapped along with other possibilities.

And what I "need" I'll leave up to me and not you.