The Japanese might argue with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
...or are you joking.
Printable View
The Japanese might argue with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
...or are you joking.
Since neither Tachikaze nor Xiahou are in the mood to inject empirical evidence into this scuffle, I came up with the following:
School shootings from around the world since 1996. Includes the Chechen slaughter in the Beslan school, which doesn't really fit the bill, but otherwise it rounds up everything I've ever heard of, including a few cases I hadn't.
"American-style" school shooting in India. Too recent for the AP article, but it certainly fits the "getting back at bullies" pattern we see in the States.
Wikipedia's exhaustive list of school-related attacks.
Just doing a quick-and-dirty hand-count of the violence listed on Wiki, making no attempt to sort out the nature of the events of qualify them in any way, I tally 104 events in U.S. schools, as opposed to 43 events in non-U.S. schools. Feel free to look at the data and come up with your own analysis, but on the face of it, advantage Tachikaze.
It makes no claims of being exhaustive and even if it did, Wikipedia is not an authoritative source. With just a cursory glance at your other links, I almost immediately found one not listed in wiki.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
There is, perhaps, something worthwhile in the article's "external links"...
Violence in school: A Few Orientations for a Worldwide Scientific DebateFrom what I can gather, the study does not include Universities and the data stops with 2005. It would seem to suggest that a large proportion do occur in the US(that probably surprises no one)- but more than everywhere else in the world combined? :no:Quote:
There have been fifteen massacres causing 177 deaths in schools since 1964, including five in the USA.
We've still seen nothing more than anecdotes to make that case. Honestly, I don't really think it can be proven definitively. Any papers I've googled up always have disclaimers about their methodology, ect or are just anecdotal. But again, if you or Tachikaze can actually find real statistics or a serious study on the issue to support his assertion, I'd love to see it.
When looking through the wiki page, I did find something else worth drawing attention to as well::shrug:Quote:
Appalachian School of Law shooting. 43-year-old Appalachian School of Law student Peter Odighizuwa shot and killed the Law School Dean, a professor, and another student; three others were wounded. The incident was ended when two students with guns subdued the shooter.
Your reaction? Why, yes it is.Quote:
Absolutely, without question, one of the most idiotic, asinine, uncivilized, backwards, brick-headed, blisteringly stupid things in existence.
It's already perfectly legal to carry a concealed weapon on Universities in Washington state.
Now, try thinking about it before rejecting it. People in the majority of states in the US can already get licenses to carry concealed pistols. Now what point is there in preventing those people, licensed to carry in the state, from carrying on universities? And if those people are students, why should they not be able to carry it on universities?
You tell me, Beirut - what changes in a person when they step over that invisible boundary of university property?
Oh, no, wait it's simple - you don't think about it, you just dismiss it out of hand.
I don't see why a learning environment must enforce defenselessness. Why, in a place of learning, should people harbor fantasies about their safety? Do you know how many women are assaulted at colleges every year? I think being able to being able to defend yourself is part of a functional society. Carrying a gun puts people on a roughly equal plane and puts persuasion over force. You speak of hostility - carrying a gun has nothing to do with hostility.
You speak of danger - and that's where you are most horribly mistaken.
Tell me, Beirut, did the no gun policy help at VT or NIU? Gee, I guess banning guns does absolutely nothing to reduce danger.
You talk of an ability of every person to kill every as being inherently bad. How is that worse than everyone but the attacker being defenseless? You speak of equality as a bad thing.
I really find it hard to believe people can stop violence by banning tools for self defense from law abiding people. You know what the definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing over and over again - insisting on disarmed victims at school, and expecting a different result when a crazy person attacks.
Instead we get the absolute shut-minded, can't-even-discuss-this attitude that schools are magically different from the rest of human society.
And on the whole amount of school shootings thing - it seems to me the overall homicide rate is what matters more than what is really just anecdotes.
CR
What happens when they miss?
Well, you know, I think I may have to side with my esteemed colleagues who feel arming students is the way to go. Brothers, I have seen the light.
But a question, if a may; since the right to defend yourself exists at any age, after all, no one has to stand there and take a beating, much less a bullet, I need some advice on how to arm my 9 & 11 year-olds for school today.
Granted, there have been elementary school shootings, but my 9 year-old might not keep herself calm and collected enough to aim well, and most of the threats are of the bullying and beating sort, so I'm thinking of a blunt instrument. Do you think an ASP (extendable baton) would do? What about a mild pepper spray, say jalapeno instead of habanera based? Strong enough for defence, but not so powerful as to blind her fellow 4th graders if the stuff gets loose. Should I pack brass knuckles in her lunch box or sew them into a quick release pocket on her Sponge Bob t-shirt? I'm thinking a mild concussive injury or broken bone will suffice for elementary school self defence. (Mind you, a cutting wound is certainly advantageous.)
Next, my 11 year-old. She's in grade six and will be in grade seven next year. I'm thinking of either a .25 or a .380. Less kick on the .25 but a .380 is a much better weapon. Since high schools carry the greatest risk of shootings, I think there's an argument to be made for her being allowed to carry a handgun in seventh grade. At least when she's sixteen, old enough to drive and join the army, by all means she should carry a handgun in high school. But for now, I'm thinking of a good quality knife. A straight razor is cheap, has a good intimidation value, but lacks in combat ergonomics. A Cold Steel folding knife is an excellent choice, but most have serrations and they might get caught on the thick winter jackets here and not penetrate to the skin. So a fixed blade, about 4" is best I think. A tanto style blade would be good, that will penetrate the winter jacket of a fellow student nicely.
So, since we're arming our kids for school, and since shootings and violence do happen at the lower levels, and since self-defence is a right, what do my fellow members feel is the best blunt weapon for Grade 4 and below and the best combat knife for high school? Once the student is sixteen and we switch to handguns for grades 9, 10 and 11, should we stick to revolvers for practical reasons or go for high-capacity semi-autos? Should we skip edged weapons for all high school students and go straight to concealed carry? Should the Grade 9s be forced to use Glaser Safety Slugs? Can they get detention or extra homework for carrying armour piercing rounds or even FMJ bullets?
In case you disagree, my left wing Constitution burning, freedom hating friends, why on Earth should a Grade 9 student who is old enough to drive, marry, and join the Marines not be allowed to carry a handgun to high school? (Or at least an 18 year-old who has failed several times and is still in high school, I mean, he has to be allowed to carry a handgun in high school.) And please, keep to the facts, no emotional relevatism or whatever it is you Liberals call it.
Thanks.
Straw men. Now you are arguing for an annulment of an age limit? I'm not, nor is anyone else on this forum (other than yourself in jest).Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Wow, this turned into another gun debate. Great. I am in no way pro guns, but blaming only them is pointless... even discussing them seems a little off to me, since it's rather clear that the weapons per se are not the problem. This thread even began with some rather intelligent comments on American society and culture.
Yeah, it's huge fun to poke around and find something, and bring it back for you to **** all over. Must be a very relaxing pastime for you as well, since, as you stated, you have no argument to make.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I'll get right on that, your worship.
Firstly saying people should be allowed to take weapons into a school or even a universtiy just sounds insane to someone from the UK or more specifically, me.
Straw men. Now you are arguing for an annulment of an age limit? I'm not, nor is anyone else on this forum (other than yourself in jest).
but the criminals don't respect the laws no matter what age they are, so what happens when the young criminal enters the school and people are defenseless because of liberal's not wanting people to defend themselves ?
Guns are part of the equation. You can't shoot someone without a gun.
Guns are not the problem, but they are certainly part of the problem. You can't have a kid bring a high-capacity semi-automatic handgun to school and say that gun itself is not a problem. But violence does not require a gun, a gun simply makes violence easier, certainly if one is intent on doing violence to many people quickly.
There are many schools that have problems with violence that does not involve guns. Bullying, beatings, sexual assaults, these things happen all too often at schools everywhere. Violence is violence. The difference is gun violence changes it from one against one, or many against one, to one against many. Also, of course, there are fatalities involved. But that one person dies and another suffers physical and/or emotional scars from other sorts of violence can be a moot point to the person who has been hurt and continues to suffer, possibly for years.
I understand the gun is just a tool for carrying out whatever job you wish to do, but if one of the high school shooters lived in the UK he would not have a gun (or it is very very very unlikely but lets take the 999/1000 times as an example) everything leading up to getting the gun would be same, same amount of anger, pain, coldness (emotionally) and desperation.
The kid who then enters the school with a knife (you could say a few weapons chainsaw or a blowtorch or something similar but knifes are the common weapon (and realistic) here in UK) he would start his rampage and unless physically strong and/or combat trained with a knife probably a small group of students could take him down. Even if highly proficient with the knife anyone with a bit of space and a exit not blocked by the attacker could get away, but the kid with the gun even without much training can shoot people a decent distance away, and 2 people running opposite ways would force the knife wielder to choose a target and give chase, the gunman would simply stand there and pop both of them off.
I would also say the gun probably increases aggression aswell, as the person with the gun nows they have no match for a time at least.
So is it worth all these kids dying for us to have a publically available killing tool ? if so what does personal gun ownership have that is more important than childrens lives ?
If you trust someone enough to allow him to have a knife then why not a gun?
Because with a gun i could walk up to large (say 10) gang of people (about 20-30 feet away) and just start shooting and aslong as
a) im a half decent shot (just a shot to immobilise them will do i can kill them later)
b) none of the gang are superman and can cover the distance between us before i notice
c) i have a big enough clip (though even with very small clips i could turn and run while reloading)
I could pretty easily kill them all, now if i went up to the same group with a knife i would have to get up close and personal, the chances are unless these 10 people were very weak they would manage to stop me, maybe with 2 or 3 casaulties.
I could also see a possible deterrent effect. Would-be shooters wouldn't know who's carrying a gun, they would just know that it's possible that any number of people are. If these sick whackos thought their 'blaze of glory' shooting spree is likely to get nipped in the bud by a classmate,
most school shooters shoot themselves in the end so im sure potentially getting shot wouldn't put many/any off.
Carrying a gun puts people on a roughly equal plane I would say it simply changes it from (with no weapons) strength, speed, pain threshold and fighting skill (how well you fight) to speed, firing skill and to a lesser level pain threshold. Fighting skill is the equivilent of shooting skill so the main factor it would remove is strength, it still leaves the plane pretty uneqaul
You know what the definition of insanity is? Doing the same thing over and over again - insisting on disarmed victims at school, and expecting a different result when a crazy person attacks.
I would say the definition of crazy is a society where so many crazy people can get thier hands on such an effective killing tool
Seems like nobody read my post on the previous page. If all school kids are armed with revolvers, the school shooters will likely bring SMGs. The relative balance will remain the same, but the absolute balance will shift towards more guns. Arming teachers could be a good idea though.
Then we agree, don't be so sensitive about kids beating eachother up because someone could just bring a knife. So I say just let them fight a little that is normal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rodion Romanovich
I did read it rodion but i agreed basically so the only comment i could have made is "I agree" so
"I agree"
the ideal situation is no weapons in schools and as the weapons get better (stick - sharp stick - knife - gun) the potential for 1 persons kills increase dramatically
Actually, it's a different kind of logical fallacy:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
When you want to talk, Beirut, and not bring logical fallacies into it, I'll be ready.Quote:
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to the absurd") also known as an apagogical argument, reductio ad impossibile, or proof by contradiction, is a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, derives an absurd or ridiculous outcome, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong as it led to an absurd result.
They miss. I doubt people are going to be congregating around the shooter.Quote:
What happens when they miss?
CR
Instead of arming every student, one could hire security guards..
Quote:
Originally Posted by LittleGrizzly
So according to this theory we get rid of all weapons in school so the kid is going to go on a killing spree with just stick?? That doesnt work. you can give every kid a muzzle loader and if that shooter comes in with a gatling gun it still only takes on bullet. It doesnt matter what type of gun they have bullets are still bullets, and if you look at 90%(not based on statistics) of american youth or youth period they probably never fired a gun in their lives. We just give them one gun one bullet and as long as their lives depend on it they will fire that shot.
I want to make clear that I do not think anyone should be compelled to carry a gun. Only that the option should be there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Viking
As for security - most campuses have their own police force. The problem is, as it has ever been, that they simply can't be everywhere at once. Even when the police - not just rent a cops - arrive fast, they're too late.
CR
No strawman here, just a cowardly lion. :sunny:Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
If the age of consent is 18, and if an 18 year-old can carry a handgun at college, why can't an 18 year-old carry a handgun at high school?
If an 18 year-old can carry a handgun into high school, why can't younger students carry knives, and why is a student who is old enough to drive and join the army not allowed to carry a gun into high school?
What are the caliber, ammunition, and magazine capacity limitations on guns in school? Can a a student of legal age, be it high school or college, carry a Thompson-Center .308 Winchester single shot pistol with FMJ ammunition? Can the student carry any of a myriad of handguns that hold up to and more than 15 shots? May he carry extra magazines? And how many? And if not, why not? May he carry a cocked and locked single action semi-auto? If not, why not? Are snatch resistent holsters required? If not, why not? May he carry one one of the semi-auto variations of an Uzi or MAC-10 if in that state they are designated as handguns? If not, why not?
I've owned dozens of rifles, handguns and shotguns. I've shot every kind of gun there is. I earned my badges in competition shooting, and I've got twenty-years of Guns & Ammo, Shooting Times, and The American Handgunner rolling around in my rusty memory banks, so I'll be looking for realistic answers to these questions.
Thanks.
Beirut- in nearly all states with licensed concealed weapon carrying, the minimum age is 21 years.
Also, a question - would you be against allowing teachers with concealed weapons permits to carry in high schools?
CR
I forgot.
May students with legal carry permits form collectives, meaning they are indentified, by a particular shirt or crest, while at school? If not, why not?
Nearly. But I speak of the others that allow 18.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
All my questions still stand.
No, teachers should not carry handguns.
Carrying in high schools:
No. I suppose you could call getting a HS degree a rite of passage. So no, HS students can't carry.
Pocketknives; yes. I think all students should be able to carry pocketknives.
So, may groups of students who carry wear a certain t-shirt? I don't see why not. You'll find though, among people who carry concealed, there is a desire not to advertise that fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Do you mean that as part of a 'nobody should carry handguns' stance or teachers especially? If the former, I'd ask why teaching means you must give up your right to self defense at the location of high profile attacks, or why being around children means you can't be allowed to effectively defend yourself.Quote:
No, teachers should not carry handguns.
I also see no reason for regulations on what pistol one can carry, nor on how many magazines. Semi-auto uzis is stretching it, as they would be hard to conceal. And I know of no state that definse them as handguns. If you do, please share. If one could, I don't see why not - considering they fire pistol ammunition anyways, and wouldn't fire it much faster if they were small enough to conceal.
CR
But if a high school sudent is of legal age, why should an education in matters completely unrelated to weapons training be pertinent to carrying a weapon?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
What about an 18 year-old with training who failed twice and is in the 10th grade? Why can't he carry a gun?
Where in the 2nd Amendment is the provision for a required minimum education? Do the states ask for one?
What about inner-city schools where minorities make up the majority of students. These people and schools are often subject to high crime levels. Shouldn't every 18 year-old student of an inner-city high school be allowed to carry a handgun? As minorities in these situations sometimes suffer a disproportionate amount of crime, shouldn't provisions be made to make it even easier for inner-city school with a high perccetage of minorities to allow for the carrying of handguns at school?
Can we agree this means a 7th grade student may carry a folding knife with a 3" or 4" blade? And if a 4" folder is allowed, what about a 4" fixed blade siince there is no real difference? What about a Ka-Bar? What if the stats showed that less people were stabbed with large fixed blade knives than with smaller ones, would you say then that large fixed blade knives should be allowed in high school?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
Many young people like to be indentified with a group. So you could have the Bumfart College 357s, and all the members could wear the team t-shirt and carry .357 Magnums. Perhaps you could have the Bumfart College .44s, and so on. Basically, you could have armed gangs now walking around school wearing their colours. What happens at school sporting events? Can the Bumfart College .44s sit next to the Brainburp College 9mms at the playoffs?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I don't know about you, but I would be extremelly nervous to be in the stands that day.
I would answer the same here as I did in a previous post, that a learning environment and the carrying of weapons simply do not go together unless one is attending a military or police college.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
If a teacher is in fear of his/her life, the school has a responsibility to provide adequate protection.
So a student could carry a .308 caliber Thompson-Center handgun with FMJ ammunition, keeping in mind that this bullet could tear through almost a foot of solid wood and penetratre into adjoining rooms, even after it has passed through a person's body? And if you forbid the .308, what about the .223 Remington (the bullet fired by M-16s)? That bullet can also be fired in a handgun. And if you forbid the .223, what about "dedicated" handgun ammunition that has greater impact energy than the .223 and still overpenetrates, why would you allow that ammunition?Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
This would mean that any FMJ round is allowed even though over penetratration is a serious issue. And since we are talking about young people with high capacity semi-autos, the threat of rapid unaimed fire (spray & pray) is also a serious issue. Without any limits on magazine size or even the number of magazines, it is (very) possible that should students start firing, there could well be a veritable fusilade of undisciplined and over penetrating fire in a crowded environment.
The Mini-Uzi and Micro-Uzi are very small and easy to conceal. This is a bit of an emotional point on my part, but I was curious if you or anyone else had a conceptual problem with young people carrying Uzis at school.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
For my part, it is night and day without a hint of doubt; carrying handguns at school is insanity.
I can only speak with any degree of certainty about my own state, but I believe most that issue carry permits require you be 21 years of age. That rules out virtually all HS students, and having been 18, I think it's probably for the best. :yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Agreed. A penknife is a tool, not a weapon. I could do just as much damage with a pair of scissors as I could with a penknife.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
But you wouldn't let any cops be around the school, since their being armed doesn't go with that environment?Quote:
I would answer the same here as I did in a previous post, that a learning environment and the carrying of weapons simply do not go together unless one is attending a military or police college.
If a teacher is in fear of his/her life, the school has a responsibility to provide adequate protection.
I really don't see how you can logically state a university is incompatible with self defense.
Show me one person who uses either a .308 or .223 pistol for everyday carry. Until then, this is irrelevant.Quote:
So a student could carry a .308 caliber Thompson-Center handgun with FMJ ammunition, keeping in mind that this bullet could tear through almost a foot of solid wood and penetratre into adjoining rooms, even after it has passed through a person's body? And if you forbid the .308, what about the .223 Remington (the bullet fired by M-16s)? That bullet can also be fired in a handgun. And if you forbid the .223, what about "dedicated" handgun ammunition that has greater impact energy than the .223 and still overpenetrates, why would you allow that ammunition?
Like I said before, I doubt the area around the shooter, or behind them (since the new MO seems to be walking into a classroom from the hallway and opening fire on the seated students), would be crowded, and that such a scenario you predict would be likely.Quote:
This would mean that any FMJ round is allowed even though over penetratration is a serious issue. And since we are talking about young people with high capacity semi-autos, the threat of rapid unaimed fire (spray & pray) is also a serious issue. Without any limits on magazine size or even the number of magazines, it is (very) possible that should students start firing, there could well be a veritable fusilade of undisciplined and over penetrating fire in a crowded environment.
I'm not going to debate such nonsense, just like I won't argue whether the fashions on alpha-centuri are objectifying females.Quote:
I don't know about you, but I would be extremelly nervous to be in the stands that day.
Fine, but don't try to force your illogical obstinance on the rest of us.Quote:
For my part, it is night and day without a hint of doubt; carrying handguns at school is insanity.
CR
If I made a statement like that you'd head butt me into next week.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
It's not that a university is incompatible with self-defense, have all the karate classes you want, but having the students carrying handguns is an unacceptable extreme.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
It is not an elephant. First off, since it's concealed carry, neither of us can know if either a .223 or .308 is being carried. That is the point. From a technical perspective, weapons can be, and will be, carried that are unsuitable to the environment and perceived tactical situation and no one will know until it is far too late.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I await your views on the finer technical points of carrying and discharging a weapon in a crowded environment. Since you eschew the emotional for the rational, I'm sure your postings on the matter will carry great relevance.
In a crowded university, people are everywhere. You can't say that as soon as gunfire erupts there won't be anyone around because if that were true no one would be killed during a school shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
I won't pick and choose. You give me a point and I will consider it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
My point is that having armed students can lead to groups of armed students organizing, and that can have terrible reprecussions. Universities are hotbeds of political and social activism, it is unrealistic to think that the pervasive carrying of weapons by young emotional people will not eventually interact with those other activities.
If you think that is not an issue, that is your choice.
I can't see that I'm forcing my illogical obstinance on anyone any more than you are. We are partners in this here particular crime. ~:yin-yang:Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit
if you think this has to do with guns you are wrong. We live in the USA we shouldnt have to get to the point were our educaters are armed to protect themsleves from there studnets. We have to figure out the why. Anything else is knee jerk reactionary measure that will backfire
Agreed. Guns are neither the root of the problem nor are they the answer. They are, however, part of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
A (huge) problem I see with having guns in school (besides all the other problems) is that some of the people who view carrying guns in school as the answer are either disregarding the technical aspects of the situation because they are unable to discuss them adequately, or are unwilling to do so because they feel discussing technicalities will lead to limitations on types of weapons and that would be an affront to their personal liberties.
The reality is that Beirut and people in his camp want guns to be limited to the point of obsolescence because they maintain that crazy people can get their hands on them more easily. They support laws that ban guns wherever they can find them in an effort to make guns obsolete, hence their support of university bans. Makes sense.
Crazed Rabbit and those in his camp believe that they should have the right to protect their families and themselves at all times without relying on the government, - who time and time again arrives on time to send the bodies to the morgue and protect the next family. Because of an increase in college shootings they have a choice - they can either ban guns further or support conceal carry on campuses - where their lives are statistically more endangered.
I think that school shooting fatalities will be reduced with either measure, but I support conceal carry laws because it solidifies the right to self/family defence as enumerated in the 2nd amendment.
Wow. Im willing to bet you've never shot a living thing in your life much less a person. A gun is the great equalizer but you hafto understand the gravity of the power that you have in your hands. You can take lives. You are so so wrong. Im not worried about the guns. The guns dont do anything Im worried about the people and the people im most worried about are people like you who think more guns in school is a good thing. You have this romantic notion of civic minded students rising as one subduing the evildoer. That isnt how its going to happen people are going to get scared and when people get scared people make rash decisons like discharge firearms in a crowded area and kill innocents.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Interesting. Almost completely wrong, but interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Aside from all the other guns that I've owned (several dozen), I've had the same Browning BL-22 my father gave to me at Christmas when I was fourteen. So if you can find anyone else on this board who has owned the same rifle for thirty years, I'd be delighted to hear you tell them they are anti-gun as well. ~:smoking:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
I've read that you have guns. They are already banned on university in almost evey case. Arn't you the one who is always using school shootings to make 2nd amendment defenders look like nazis? Or is that Goofball and Tribesman? What kind of plan are you suggesting that we adopt on a national level in terms of gun regulation?
It sounds like you are a fan of guns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
I've never seen it. It's worth a try on a few select campuses. We'll see if it turns into a blood bath.
BTW I haven't shot a person as far as I know.
Its reactionary measure that will cuase more harm than good.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I'm for it. It makes sense. If people have a right to carry guns, why should they forfeit that right when they need it most? School by school basis is the best way to implement it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
Good. Remove the word "almost" and it will be better.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Not at all, I'm a great fan of the American Constitution. A wonderful and remarkable document. But is is neither infalible nor always explicit. If it was, you would not require a Supreme Court to interpret it's meanings from time to time. Nor would it have required amendments in the past, or the future as some wish to impart upon it.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
A realistic one that incorporates both the rights of gun owners with the reality of the inherent danger guns present.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
But we should perhaps keep this on topic.
Shooting is a great sport. Lots of fun. And there are legitimate self-defense issues that can't be ignored. But carrying handguns in school is, to us lefty Canadians anyway, absolutely sickening.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
Aside from the grievous technical concerns of having young inexperienced and untrained people carrying guns unsuitable to the tactical situation in a crowded environment (which no one seems able or willing to confront), there are legitimate social concerns as well.
Hey, I'm a fan of car racing as well, but I still insist that traffic slow to a crawl in a school zone.
My dear Beirut, one is sounding more and more like James Madison these days, and that is meant as a serious compliment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Command of language, clarity of thought, good show! :toff:
Those who want to keep their guns because they think they need them or because they like them should state their own reasons, not invoke the Second Amendment. Given the circumstances of the young republic, Madison had military reasons to introduce the Second:
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. (Federalist 46)His vision proved to be invaluable in the first decades. Instead of extrapolating on this, I will let The Battle of New Orleans do the talking:
then we opened up with squirrel guns and really gave 'em well
My dearest AdrianII,
Any kind word from you I accept with gracious thanks. :sunny:
Especially when it overlooks the reckless spelling mistakes I seem to commit with such abandon.
Mythical accounts are not a good example Adrian .Quote:
Instead of extrapolating on this, I will let The Battle of New Orleans do the talking:
The only reason for the British defeat was British incompetance .
It must have been since Jackson had only a motley troop of 4000 against 10,000crack British troops fresh from the European campaign.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The story is more than myth. Jackson's rag-tag army was actually comprised of various militia, Indians, pirates, free blacks and what have you. Thir guns were not state of the art, and that is reflected in the squirrel gun mention.
They certainly were not fresh or crack troops , nor were the motley group all from the european campaign , the Jamaican troops mostly died of exposure (those that hadn't already died of disease).Quote:
It must have been since Jackson had only a motley troop of 4000 against 10,000crack British troops fresh from the European campaign.
The British only attacked .....after a long upstream row , a very very long walk through bad ground in atrocious weather , with a severe shortage of supplies and ammunition ....because it was their experience throughout the war that the militia would turn and run .
Their guns state doesn't come into it , emplaced artillery inside strong fortifications on firm ground with plentiful ammunition will slaughter ill equipped , sick , exhausted troops advancing in close order over a narrow restricted frontage on open ground , especially when their own supporting artillery is short of ammunition and sinking in a swamp under its own weight .Quote:
Thir guns were not state of the art, and that is reflected in the squirrel gun mention.
I've already shown an example of armed university students subduing an armed attacker on campus. That is how it happens. Sure, it's possible (but rare) that innocents could get accidentally shot- but innocents are going to also get shot when an armed attacker is unopposed. I think most cases of innocent bystanders getting shot involves the police, the so-called experts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
It is happening. Most universities probably have policies against weapons, but legally, there's no restrictions in place in many states. States like Utah apparently have laws that explicitly allow it. And what's happening? Mostly nothing. University students aren't accidentally shooting each other or blasting one another over a parking space or any of the other nonsense arguments people trot out.Quote:
Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff
I`m curious how it could be `possible, but rare`, that innocent people could get shot. An interesting use of language.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Do you have any views on the sorts of handguns and ammunition that should be allowed to be carried on campus? Would you agree to any limitations?
Since you would allow handguns, does that mean you would also allow knives, stun guns, impact weapons, and mace?
People seem to assume that just because someone isn't a police officer, they'll blindly plug away without a thought- I haven't seen any evidence to suggest this and the only cases I've seen contradict the notion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
I think hollow points make the most sense, but I don't see reason to regulate it.Quote:
Do you have any views on the sorts of handguns and ammunition that should be allowed to be carried on campus? Would you agree to any limitations?
Mace makes sense as an alternative for those who can't or won't carry a gun. Knives, brass knuckels, stun guns, ect don't really make much sense to me- so if you're asking me personally, I'd say no to them but it's really not my call. :shrug:Quote:
Since you would allow handguns, does that mean you would also allow knives, stun guns, impact weapons, and mace?
I think the spray & spray technique derives from the shooter`s perception of his limitless magazine capacity, unless the shooter is well trained, which often leaves out a lot of police and perhaps even more civilians.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Wouldn`t you think that young people (reasonably assumed to be inexperienced shooters mostly) carrying high capacity semi-autos, which for reliabiltiy`s sake are most often loaded with FMJ ammunition (which can overpenetrate), would present a highly dangerous situation in a crowded shooting environment environment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
What about people carrying overpowered handguns, such as a .44 Magnum, which might be Dirty Harry cool, but utterly unsuited to a crowded shooting environment?
What about cocked and locked single action semi-automatics, which present a much higher danger of accidental discharge for an inexperienced shooter?
What about mandatory snatch-proof holsters?
What about the newer (and quite nasty) ammunition types like the Winchester Black Talon rounds, which create particularly heinous wounds?
Would you not agree that there are serious techical considerations to be taken into account before allowing handguns carried by young inexperienced shooters onto a crowded school campus?
Ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Spray and pray? I don't know any gun owner who thinks that. The gun owners I know are very conscientious- and that goes double for permit holders. Again, evidence does not bear out the spray and pray notion- there are tens of thousands of permit holders in my state alone and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any accounts of "spray and pray" from a law-abiding citizen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
I like the reliability and predictability of revolvers better than semi-autos, but again, that's just a personal preference and I see no need to regulate. If you want to see a flame war, go on a gun site and tell people that semi-autos are unsafe for carry. :laugh4:Quote:
Wouldn`t you think that young people (reasonably assumed to be inexperienced shooters mostly) carrying high capacity semi-autos, which for reliabiltiy`s sake are most often loaded with FMJ ammunition (which can overpenetrate), would present a highly dangerous situation in a crowded shooting environment environment?
Now, if we ever find ourselves with a rash of bystanders being shot by overzealous spray & pray permit holders whose rounds over-penetrate maybe we should try to look into ways to better educate people. But right now, it doesn't seem to be a problem.
I think 44's are also utterly unsuited to concealed carry- they're too big and too heavy. And I seriously doubt that people who wish to conceal/carry put having a cool-looking gun above one that's convenient and effective.Quote:
What about people carrying overpowered handguns, such as a .44 Magnum, which might be Dirty Harry cool, but utterly unsuited to a crowded shooting environment?
Nah.Quote:
What about mandatory snatch-proof holsters?
IIRC, Black Talons were essentially normal JHP ammo that they made the mistake of giving a black coating. The ensuing bad PR made their manufacturer pull them only to replace them with a similar non-black, less scary version that's essentially the same in all other ways. I'm not an expert, a lawyer, or anything else of the sort, but I think JHP ammo makes good sense because it shouldn't overpenetrate and should be more likely to stop your target. I've heard good things about CorBons.Quote:
What about the newer (and quite nasty) ammunition types like the Winchester Black Talon rounds, which create particularly heinous wounds?
I think that if most people exercise some common sense, that's usually enough. I also think that most regular gun carriers are responsible people and I'm not going to get too excited about it until it's shown otherwise. Further, I think it's a gun owner's responsibility- and those who carry in particular- to learn how to properly use, maintain, and handle their guns. Any who use their guns in an irresponsible and negligent manner should be dealt with harshly- it's a big responsibility and should not be taken lightly.Quote:
Would you not agree that there are serious techical considerations to be taken into account before allowing handguns carried by young inexperienced shooters onto a crowded school campus?
I think it's mainly about mind-frame. You seem to look at a room of your peers and are afraid that one of them may be carrying. On the other hand, I can take a small measure of comfort in thinking that other law-abiding citizens may be carrying weapons whenever I'm out and about. :shrug:
Common sense can be a rare commodity .Quote:
I think that if most people exercise some common sense, that's usually enough.
I would think that a spray & pray shooting would come from a reaction to a dangerous situation as opposed to being thought out beforehand.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Agreed, though, most of the gun owners I know are conscientious as well.
Why go there when I can do it here. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I don`t think most semi-autos are unsafe to carry, but a cocked and locked single action semi-auto, for example, is a beast that requires a very experienced shooter to carry safely.
I cannot help but think of the horse and the barn door.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Amongst younger people, especially young men, I`m not sure I share that opinion. Bigger, better, badder is a real influence on young people. And there is doubtlessly going to be some, shall we say, anthropomorphizing of guns amongst younger men which could, and probably will, lead to poor choices in weapons and ammunition.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
By the by, there are some short barrelled .44s that are well suited to concealed carry.
Or yah.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
The Black Talon handgun ammo, unless I`m mistaken, are JHP with serrations in the lead that cause the bullet to open up like a round saw blade, causing an actual removal of body tissue instead of a temporary wound cavity. Very nasty.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Agreed, it should not be taken lightly at all. But do you not think students carrying guns at school constitutes an unusual carry environment that (God forbid) even if carry was allowed, very special considerations and rules would have to be set in place?Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I don`t fear that other people are carrying because the vast majority of Canadians feel that carrying a handgun on a day to day basis is insane and represents a horrible cultural and social outlook. I take great comfort that no one is carrying a handgun. (Yes, I know that criminals will do as they please, but I don`t want to emulate the worst aspects of their behaviour and neither do the vast majority of Canadians.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
Again, as if it hasn`t been stated already, most Canadians would rather sell their children to a Nike factory in China then send them to a school where there are armed students. I think, and I am sure the vast majority of Canadians agree, that legalizing guns in school is nothing less than absolutely insane.
Thank you for answering in detail. Mostly, I was looking to see if any of the pro-carry people were willing or able to take this discussion to a greater depth. I`m willing to discuss the finer technical points, the devil being in the details, but I think that might bore the pants off everyone and goodness knows we both know where we stand. I`ll leave it to you if you wish to further the discussion. If you do, I will be delighted to respond.
The obvious (with hindsight) British mistakes were compounded by the fact that Jackson was a brilliant tactician.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
1. He chose to set up quarters near Chalmette precisely because it was a choking point.
2. His surprise attack on the night of the 23rd on the encamped British prevented their organised march on New Orleans. For that engagement Jackson could commit only two 6-pounders, one of which was overturned early in the engagement.
3. As to the final engagement on the 8th, Jackson actually ordered his batteries to cease fire in order to lift the smoke so his musket-men could take aim..
And Jackson was the one who was short of ammunition. He had to buy half his stuff from the pirates: "I procured from them 7500 flints for pistols and boarding peaces, which was solely the supply of flints for all my militia and if it had not been for this providential aid the country must have fallen. "
If he obtained half his stuff from an arms dealer he was not short of ammuntion at the time of the engagement was he .Quote:
And Jackson was the one who was short of ammunition. He had to buy half his stuff from the pirates:
Its funny that you chose a war that demonstrated the inadequacies of the militia .
Funny that Jackson thought the militias saved the day. The U.S. navy certainly didn't, not did the handful of 16-pounders Jackson could bring to bear. The militias were surprisingly effective considering that during assembly some (Mississippi and Kentucky) had no guns at all...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Terribly sorry old boy but eyewitneses said that the artillery caused most of the casualties , especailly the 18 and 24 pounders across the river (the ones that were supposed to be taken care of before an advance should be attemted)Quote:
Funny that Jackson thought the militias saved the day. The U.S. navy certainly didn't, not did the handful of 16-pounders Jackson could bring to bear.
Jackson said the militia had saved the day to boost his popularity and to cover that he mistakenly sent most of the regulars to the wrong place leaving him only 2 regular army regiment in Orleans .
Eyewitnesses say the British were mown down during their ill-conceived frontal assault by both American artillery and expert musketry from the Kentuckians and Tennesseans. And they had been demoralised not by disease, but by previous American feats such as Jackson's pre-emptive attack on the 23rd of December.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
And finally, of course, the stupid Irish of the Fourty-Forth forgot to bring the planks they were ordered to cary so everyone else could cross the ditches .. :laugh4:On the contrary, Jackson set up a line that was near impossible to overturn. Even when the British under Colonel Rennie conquered an American battery, it was reclaimed by American musketry.Quote:
Jackson said the militia had saved the day to boost his popularity and to cover that he mistakenly sent most of the regulars to the wrong place leaving him only 2 regular army regiment in Orleans .
The affair illustrated something else, too. As American military mapmaker Arsene Latour put it, the British seemed innately unable to 'sacrifice the regularity of their movements to promptitude and celerity' because 'it is well-known that agility is not the distinctive quality of British troops.' Opposed to their slavish notion of discipline was the free spirit of the American militias who stood coureageously (and irresponsibly) atop their reinforcements to pick off British 'squirrels'.
It is a typical mistake of British historians to attribute some of their nation's losses to bad British leadership instead of the superior leadership or mentality of the opposition. And Europeans in general tend to overlook how revolutionary the American Revolution really was.
All in all, your mistaken analysis leads to the mistaken conclusion that the militias failed at new Orleans. In fact, their success contributed to the postponement of the establishment of a strong American professional army till WWI.
While Tribes has been nitpicking in his usual fashion, his original claim for the failure of the militia was for the war, not the battle. Whatever happened at New Orleans could hardly compensate for what happened at Bladensburg as a test of the militia as a viable home defence force.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
'Its funny that you chose a war that demonstrated the inadequacies of the militia .'
Well, there were/are a lot of german immigrants in the US, should be clear why the militias were/are so good, with such genes.... :sweatdrop:
Hehe. "Jawohl, ya'll!".Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
The militia was always meant to be the last resort in the defense of the nation. As such it proved its metal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The War of 1812 started out as a war of agression, something at which the British were much better at the time. When the tide in Europe turned, more British troops became available while the strangehold of the British navy resulted in national bankruptcy (and the personal bankruptcy of Jefferson) - after which there was only one recourse left, as always in the early years of the American republic.
Sure, the militia system wasn't ideal. Even Jackson had trouble controlling some of the rabble under his command (to the point where he had to face a mutiny of the Tennesseans because he'd had one of the shot for insurordination). His success however contributed to the notion that there was no need for a large standing army along the lines of the British example.
Sorry Adrian , those militia that stood courageously , would they be somewhat different tothe militia that ran away at that battle .Quote:
Opposed to their slavish notion of discipline was the free spirit of the American militias who stood coureageously (and irresponsibly) atop their reinforcements to pick off British 'squirrels'.
the ones that stood stood with regular troops and strong fortifications and supporting fire .
the ones that ran just had strong fortifications and supporting fire .
Ok leaving aside that Britain didn't have a large standing army, are you forgetting the call and debates within his administration for a large standing army precicley because of the failures of the militia during the war .Quote:
His success however contributed to the notion that there was no need for a large standing army along the lines of the British example.
His success did contribute to the notion , but the notion was a flawed one and was recognised as a flawed one .
so would American historians , like American army college historians for example attribute bad leadership of the British for the failure of the assaultQuote:
It is a typical mistake of British historians to attribute some of their nation's losses to bad British leadership instead of the superior leadership or mentality of the opposition.
Yes, they were differently led (Winder was an idiot) as well as differently motivated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
You seem to forget that the War of 1812 was the most unpopular war in American history, begun for the wrong reasons by the wrong people (Madison was a brilliant thinker, but a poor President) and under persistently weak military leadership, a problem that has plagued the Americans far more than it ever did the British (beside corruption and sutlers which were an additional plague for the militias). The New England states were always opposed to it and enthusiasm in the South and West quickly evaporated. Many militias refused to cross the border with Canada. After Bladensburg some of the New England ports even pledged allegiance to the Crown again, and happily so, since it meant they could resume trading.
In this atmosphere, the battle of Bladensburg, fought by badly motivated and poorly led American militias who hardly outnumbered the professional British troops opposing them, was bound to be lost.
In which school did the War fo 1812 occur?
LoL, Tachikaze. The school of discussion of the legitimacy of the "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" bit of the 2nd A.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
Although AdrianII and Tribesman have wandered pretty far afield, I trust they'll come back 'round to more immediate relevance soon.
So far, it's been a refreshing change from the usual "You gun-luvvin Nazi", v "Commie-pinko property- grabber" argument.
In my opinion.
I don't forget , its just that that war happens to be my favourite war , and that battle in particular always makes me laugh (especialy all the myths that grew from it).Quote:
You seem to forget that the War of 1812 was the most unpopular war in American history
Why is it your favorite?Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
The last page of this thread has had me more interested in something I knew little about than most of the backroom has for a few months. I hope it doesn't get back on track or die anytime soon.
:7teacher: :2thumbsup:
That should be obvious Strike , the whole thing was a joke , a completely pointless stupid joke that was totally uneccesary and achieved absolutely nothing , the battle of new orleans is so funny in particular because it happened after the pointless war was already over .Quote:
Why is it your favorite?
Though I think my real favourite from the whole farce was the EIC Nautilus and USS Peacock , that is just to funny by half .
Well that leaves us allot of canadites. I wouldve opted for WWI but to each his ownQuote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
:book:Quote:
Originally Posted by Blackadder
well yeaQuote:
Originally Posted by Evil_Maniac From Mars
Other people's wars and conflicts often look pointless, particularly from afar or with 20/20 hindsight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
This sums up my argument pretty nicely - I like speaking, I leave the writing to those who like writing.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
I was in Montreal last Sunday at McGill University. The regional championships for my kid`s spelling bee were held there. While at McGill, I took a long hard look at the environment, the students, the whole feeling of the place, and when I imagined that the students were carrying handguns under their jackets or in their backpacks, it made me ill.
Everyone knows where everyone else stands on the issue and my views haven`t changed one bit. Now they are even more harsh. Handguns at school are a perversion of common sense and a horrible admission of failure in the face of adversity.
Sending your kids to school armed is not a statement of freedom; it is an admission that your society, your government, and your culture are in a state of disaster and that nothing is being fixed.
That's true. Discussing how to clean toothpaste out of a washcloth is more interesting than gun threads.Quote:
Originally Posted by KukriKhan
It happened in the school of statecraft, the one that produces, among other things, constitutions and their amendments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tachikaze
Why? By kids, I assume you mean University students(also known as adults). If so, it wouldn't bother me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
They are? Awesome! :2thumbsup:Quote:
Originally Posted by John Stossel
The kids I mentioned were all in the 4th to 8th grade. The regional finals for the spelling bee were held at McGill because it's a gorgeous place. By students, I meant university students. (My kid tied for 4th place out of the final 50 who won out of 11,000 who entered. Thank you, thank you. :bow:)Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
I know as much about guns as probably anyone here, but I do not understand this need to have one on my person at all times. I can't imagine living in a place where I didn't feel right unless I was packing a Glock and thirty extra rounds.
I guess I'm just lucky I don't live in constant state of fear.
Congratulations. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
If you don't feel the need to, then dont. The problem comes when you want to prevent other law-abiding citizens from doing so,Quote:
I know as much about guns as probably anyone here, but I do not understand this need to have one on my person at all times. I can't imagine living in a place where I didn't feel right unless I was packing a Glock and thirty extra rounds.
Weak. ~:handball:Quote:
I guess I'm just lucky I don't live in constant state of fear.
http://www.expresschemist.co.uk/pics.../0/vagisil.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Beirut
Here you go. Just kidding :drama1: :sweatdrop: :painting: :belly: :elephant: :cheerleader: :hippie::drama3:
Just to build on the point in beiruts last sentence...
Unless your going somewhere where you use the gun, hunting or down shooting range ect. what do you need the gun for apart from stopping bad people ?
and so why would you need to take a gun into school unless there is some fear from a potential shooter ?
You live in a civilized country. Enjoy it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beirut