School sercurity

[pepi1967]

But doesn't every state have a different gun law in the USA? Some have open carry some not at all etc.

 

[TriggerHappy]

You would be surprised though. Look at the trouble we've had in the far east with some similarly equipped people.

Someone sent me a link the other day about previous governments who had disarmed their civilians, who once disarmed were then murdered by the millions by the governments.

Do you really ever see your government going that way? And do you really think if it did you could overturn them by out gunning them? It's all a little tin hat stuff for me to ever agree with!

 

[Studi0488]

As I and others have said, its simply not possible to stop this, if it was a daily occurance maybe, but smoking kills more people daily than this sort of thing.

And if you want a gun in the uk its not a problem, hand granades are even on the menu.

Thankfully there are very very few nutters capable of this type of stuff.

And I would love to see the statistics regarding lives saved by being armed, there must be some.

 

[gramps]

Thankfully there are very very few nutters capable of this type of stuff.

You sure?

 

[OutLore]

But doesn't every state have a different gun law in the USA? Some have open carry some not at all etc.

Yes, the requirements for gun ownership, and where you may (or may not) and how you carry your weapon vary from state to state. For example, NC (where I live) is an open carry state, which basically means I can carry a gun - so long as it's clearly visible. In order to have a concealed weapon, I'd need a CCP (concealed carry permit) which as a non US citizen, I cannot get. I can get one from another state, and it may be recognised here. There's also other ways around this.

Do you really ever see your government going that way? And do you really think if it did you could overturn them by out gunning them? It's all a little tin hat stuff for me to ever agree with!

Not really my government - I'm an ex-pat from the UK , but agreed, and it's not really something that is thought about that often, but it's the 2nd amendment - added in 1791. Obviously things have moved on, but the constitution stays the same. It's the same with any constitution really, they're not normally updated to be in line with modern times.

Interestingly, according to FBI records, the baseball bat is the most commonly used weapon in violent crime - but of course there's a much higher rate of mortality with a gun, not to mention that you've got to get up close and personal to use a bat or a knife in most cases, with a gun you can remain detached from what you're doing.

Gun control at point of sale or ownership control wouldn't do an awful lot in situations like this (as many of the other mass shootings) because these people are not using their own weapons. Last report I read stated that the shooter in this case used his mother's guns. All her children are "adult" and therefore she has no reason to lock up her guns. (Although I do think that would go some way to prevent things like this, but won't eradicate it).

 

[neil_g]

I'm more interested in how a young man with what they suspect to be aspergers got hold of a .223 in the first place.

E: ah was the mothers gun. Irrespective of whether all of her children were adults it should've been locked up.

 

[Davec223]

I'm more interested in how a young man with what they suspect to be aspergers got hold of a .223 in the first place.

E: ah was the mothers gun. Irrespective of whether all of her children were adults it should've been locked up.

Again laws in the USA are different to over here. I am an ex firearms dealer from this side of the pond, I never understand the call to ban guns that has happened over here, this countries governments have proved that tighter gun laws solve nothing.

 

[viv1969]

Spencer, it's funny you should mention a baseball bat. I keep several around the house, but all are accompanied by a baseBALL, thus negating them from being classed as a weapon in the home in the UK.

 

[TriggerHappy]

Spencer, it's funny you should mention a baseball bat. I keep several around the house, but all are accompanied by a baseBALL, thus negating them from being classed as a weapon in the home in the UK.

Why do you feel the need for them? Do you feel that unsafe in your own home? Or are you just a baseball enthusiast?

 

[OutLore]

Spencer, it's funny you should mention a baseball bat. I keep several around the house, but all are accompanied by a baseBALL, thus negating them from being classed as a weapon in the home in the UK.

Yeah - that used to be the trick, keeping a glove and a few balls in the boot of the car to go with them...

Of course, most bats have now been replaced with the huge Maglites. Apparently these can also be used as some kind of torch

 

[viv1969]

Why do you feel the need for them? Do you feel that unsafe in your own home? Or are you just a baseball enthusiast?

Funnily enough I don't feel a "need for them" now....They're just habit from former times lol. There are only three and to be fair one has been heavily used as a dog chew toy. Stand more chance of lacerating someone to death with that one rather than a good pummelling

 

[OutLore]

Again laws in the USA are different to over here. I am an ex firearms dealer from this side of the pond, I never understand the call to ban guns that has happened over here, this countries governments have proved that tighter gun laws solve nothing.

Because - criminals, and those likely to commit armed crime are NOT going to just hand in the tools of their "trade"...

I do think that it's too easy to get a firearm and ammunition here, I mean you can seriously get them from WalMart. They need to be only available from licensed firearms dealers, who are trained, and VERY regularly vetted. The owners of them should also be made to take a test every 6/12 months.
Even with that kind of control, or stricter controls - things like this will still happen, as I said these things are typically committed by people using other peoples weapons.

I'm more interested in how a young man with what they suspect to be aspergers got hold of a .223 in the first place.
E: ah was the mothers gun. Irrespective of whether all of her children were adults it should've been locked up.

I'm not 100% sure on what the law states regarding keeping weapons locked up, but I assume the mother was in the house at the time, I think she was found there. If all weapons had to be locked, then it defeats the purpose of having them for self defense - if you have to go get a key, unlock a cabinet etc. etc.

 

[viv1969]

Yeah - that used to be the trick, keeping a glove and a few balls in the boot of the car to go with them...

Of course, most bats have now been replaced with the huge Maglites. Apparently these can also be used as some kind of torch

Ironic, bt in the UK, true.

I can carry a roll of perfectly honed professional knives in my boot if I can then prove I am either a butcher or a chef. I am neither...nor do I have the knives

 

[Garry Edwards]

Let's keep this in perspective.

Horrific though this attack was, attacks of this type are rare even in America, and extremely rare in other parts of the world.

In this country, a mentally ill man with a machette carried out a frenzied attack on a nursery school in 1996. Heroine Lisa Potts saved the day.

The same year, Thomas Hamilton carried out a murderous attack at a primary school, with tragic consequences, using guns that he shouldn't have had access to.

Even if we were to go way over the top and have armed guards in every school, it would achieve nothing because, typically, these attacks are completed in just a few minutes - the guards wouldn't normally be able to intervene in time, even if they were capable of doing so. And arming teachers would be totally ridiculous, I can't think of many occupational groups less suited for that role...

And as for physical security, if we take the USA, where most attacks of this type take place, the perpetrator is normally a pupil, so stopping unauthorised people from entering the school would achieve nothing.

This is a terrible incident, but in reality there is nothing that can be done, or that needs to be done.

 

[Davec223]

Let's keep this in perspective.

Horrific though this attack was, attacks of this type are rare even in America, and extremely rare in other parts of the world.

In this country, a mentally ill man with a machette carried out a frenzied attack on a nursery school in 1996. Heroine Lisa Potts saved the day.

The same year, Thomas Hamilton carried out a murderous attack at a primary school, with tragic consequences, using guns that he shouldn't have had access to.

Even if we were to go way over the top and have armed guards in every school, it would achieve nothing because, typically, these attacks are completed in just a few minutes - the guards wouldn't normally be able to intervene in time, even if they were capable of doing so. And arming teachers would be totally ridiculous, I can't think of many occupational groups less suited for that role...

And as for physical security, if we take the USA, where most attacks of this type take place, the perpetrator is normally a pupil, so stopping unauthorised people from entering the school would achieve nothing.

This is a terrible incident, but in reality there is nothing that can be done, or that needs to be done.

Superb post Gary, just wish I was as good putting the point across as you.

 

[viv1969]

And as for physical security, if we take the USA, where most attacks of this type take place, the perpetrator is normally a pupil, so stopping unauthorised people from entering the school would achieve nothing.

This is a terrible incident, but in reality there is nothing that can be done, or that needs to be done.

So the fact that they are generally pupils (or former pupils) of said school makes it OK? Yeah, good luck with that perspective.

 

[archamedes]

I just don't understand the trend with going to schools and shooting up a load of kids, why do these nutcases do it? Surely there are enough other populated places and offices they could go, but no its always the schools where the young and innocent have to die.

I appreciate how my post looks, but I am not saying Im happy for them to go off to other places to murder people, I'm just questioning why it has to be schools

 

[TriggerHappy]

This is a terrible incident, but in reality there is nothing that can be done, or that needs to be done.

I couldn't disagree more strongly with this. To accept that these things are just a sad inevitability and that nothing need be done to reduce their frequency is completely wrong, in my opinion.

 

[Davec223]

I just don't understand the trend with going to schools and shooting up a load of kids, why do these nutcases do it? Surely there are enough other populated places and offices they could go, but no its always the schools where the young and innocent have to die.

I appreciate how my post looks, but I am not saying Im happy for them to go off to other places to murder people, I'm just questioning why it has to be schools

It's really easy, children are not capable in most cases to defend themselves, go into any other public places (in the USA) and you are likely to come up against some one else armed, that is the simple answer to that.

 

[neil_g]

I just don't understand the trend with going to schools and shooting up a load of kids, why do these nutcases do it? Surely there are enough other populated places and offices they could go, but no its always the schools where the young and innocent have to die.

I appreciate how my post looks, but I am not saying Im happy for them to go off to other places to murder people, I'm just questioning why it has to be schools

In this instance they seem to be suggesting that he had aspergers which can (in very basic terms) give the sufferer no/altered concept of things like pain, emotion etc. it's entirely possible that he had no/little concept of what he was doing and/or the consequences.

Which goes back to my original question that if he was known to have such a learning difficulty / mental condition why did his parents have guns so easily accessible.

 

[odd jim]

Although gun laws in the US a ridiculous things like this can happen anywhere. The Raoul Moat incident wasn't very long rime ago. This could have been a school and with have very strict gun laws.

Does every classroom need to have a fire escape? If not maybe that would be something to think about if a classroom door can only be opened from the inside and the have a fire escape the have a fighting chance of getting out. Not do mention the more likely thread of a fire you have improved safety there also.

The Raul Moat incident could never have replicated any mass US shooting, all he had was a two shot dawn off shotgun. After the 2nd shot he could be challenged. The problem in the US is the freely available high powered, large magazine automatics you can buy anywhere, without licence.

 

[Davec223]

The Raul Moat incident could never have replicated any mass US shooting, all he had was a two shot dawn off shotgun. After the 2nd shot he could be challenged. The problem in the US is the freely available high powered, large magazine automatics you can buy anywhere, without licence.

I would rather face someone with a high capacity rifle than someone with a sawn off shotgun. And I can't remember if it has been revoked or not but I know they did try banning high cap magazines in handguns not sure if it included rifle mags as well.

 

[odd jim]

I would rather face someone with a high capacity rifle than someone with a sawn off shotgun. And I can't remember if it has been revoked or not but I know they did try banning high cap magazines in handguns not sure if it included rifle mags as well.

Really???! A sawn off shotgun is useless over 10 metres and after the 2nd shot you can choose to fight or flight (shotguns over 3 shell capacity are banned over here and even in the criminal underworld they're more or less unheard of). With an automatic carbine you're flat screwed as soon as it starts.

I'd also question if you can find any mass shootings committed with an up and under shotgun.

 

[Davec223]

Really???! A sawn off shotgun is useless over 10 metres and after the 2nd shot you can choose to fight or flight (shotguns over 3 shell capacity are banned over here and even in the criminal underworld they're more or less unheard of). With an automatic carbine you're flat screwed as soon as it starts.

I'd also question if you can find any mass shootings committed with an up and under shotgun.

Sorry to many inaccurate facts here

1 a sawn off is more than capable at killing someone at more than 10 meters.

2 pump and semi shotgun with a magazine capacity of over 2 shots are not banned they are on a firearm certificate not a shotgun certificate.

You are not flat screwed when someone starts shooting a rifle, and they have to be able to shoot to hit something, but with a shotgun aim in the general direction. 223 bullet weighs approx 4 grams and a shotgun cartridge has 28 to 32 grams of lead shot in it, as I said I know which I would rather face

 

[Garry Edwards]

Really???! A sawn off shotgun is useless over 10 metres and after the 2nd shot you can choose to fight or flight (shotguns over 3 shell capacity are banned over here and even in the criminal underworld they're more or less unheard of). With an automatic carbine you're flat screwed as soon as it starts.

I'd also question if you can find any mass shootings committed with an up and under shotgun.

I agree with this post in general, but you're wrong on the details.

(shotguns over 3 shell capacity are banned over here

No they're not, they just move from S2 to S1 - easily obtained by anyone who has good reason, e.g. for shooting pigeons or for the sport of practical shotgun.

I'd also question if you can find any mass shootings committed with an up and under shotgun

Derrick Bird.

 

[gramps]

According to the late news he had fired "100's of bullets and had 100's left".

 

[OutLore]

In this instance they seem to be suggesting that he had aspergers which can (in very basic terms) give the sufferer no/altered concept of things like pain, emotion etc. it's entirely possible that he had no/little concept of what he was doing and/or the consequences.

Which goes back to my original question that if he was known to have such a learning difficulty / mental condition why did his parents have guns so easily accessible.

I wasn't aware that he had been diagnosed with AS - in which case, yes she definitely should have taken more care with her weapons.

The Raul Moat incident could never have replicated any mass US shooting, all he had was a two shot dawn off shotgun. After the 2nd shot he could be challenged. The problem in the US is the freely available high powered, large magazine automatics you can buy anywhere, without licence.

Wasn't he on the run with his gun for 22 hours? Had he wanted to, seems to me like he could have done a lot more damage than he did, so I am not so sure that's a really valid point. It was amazing to me that only 1 person died during that particular event.

 

[DemiLion]

Derrick Bird.

Natch. He used a side-by-side.

 

[odd jim]

I wasn't aware that he had been diagnosed with AS - in which case, yes she definitely should have taken more care with her weapons.

Wasn't he on the run with his gun for 22 hours? Had he wanted to, seems to me like he could have done a lot more damage than he did, so I am not so sure that's a really valid point. It was amazing to me that only 1 person died during that particular event.

People are missing my point. With a 2 shot shotgun, as per the one Raul Moat used, it's a slow, cumbersome weapon where the shooter is vulnerable as after the 2nd shot they have to spend time reloading, and in general, they are not easy to reload quickly.

With an automatic rifle, such as the Bushmaster used on this occasion, you can shoot fast, shoot long and reload quickly, increasing the kill rate considerably, and making the shooter very hard to challenge.

 

[odd jim]

I agree with this post in general, but you're wrong on the details.
No they're not, they just move from S2 to S1 - easily obtained by anyone who has good reason, e.g. for shooting pigeons or for the sport of practical shotgun.
Derrick Bird.

Ah yes, Derek Bird did use a 12 gauge but didn't he also use a .22 bolt action as well?

 

[odd jim]

Sorry to many inaccurate facts here

1 a sawn off is more than capable at killing someone at more than 10 meters.

2 pump and semi shotgun with a magazine capacity of over 2 shots are not banned they are on a firearm certificate not a shotgun certificate.

You are not flat screwed when someone starts shooting a rifle, and they have to be able to shoot to hit something, but with a shotgun aim in the general direction. 223 bullet weighs approx 4 grams and a shotgun cartridge has 28 to 32 grams of lead shot in it, as I said I know which I would rather face

I'm not talking about what I'd rather be hit by, I'm talking about which would be worse in a mass shooting scenario, and the chances of being able to challenge the shooter.

 

[Garry Edwards]

Natch. He used a side-by-side.

Well, even if I'm wrong about it being an over/under, it makes no difference - and in fact an over/under would probably have been faster than a side x side.

Most (not all) side x side shotguns don't have ejectors (mine don't) and the spent cartridges have to be removed manually before they can be replaced by loaded cartridges.

Side x side guns don't open nearly as far as over/unders, this slows down the loading process.

 

[OutLore]

People are missing my point. With a 2 shot shotgun, as per the one Raul Moat used, it's a slow, cumbersome weapon where the shooter is vulnerable as after the 2nd shot they have to spend time reloading, and in general, they are not easy to reload quickly.

With an automatic rifle, such as the Bushmaster used on this occasion, you can shoot fast, shoot long and reload quickly, increasing the kill rate considerably, and making the shooter very hard to challenge.

So why did it take 22 hours to stop Raoul Moat?

Fact is, most people would not approach a person with a shotgun - especially if they've just fired 2 shots at you/other people. Yes, it's possible to use the reload time to take him down, but would that actually happen in reality? Nope.

There's also an argument with the RM case to say if UK police officers were armed, he may have been taken down earlier - but I still don't want the regular officer to be armed in the UK. (Not that it affects me much now, but the UK will always be "The Mother Land")

 

[DemiLion]

Well, even if I'm wrong about it being an over/under, it makes no difference - and in fact an over/under would probably have been faster than a side x side.

Most (not all) side x side shotguns don't have ejectors (mine don't) and the spent cartridges have to be removed manually before they can be replaced by loaded cartridges.

Side x side guns don't open nearly as far as over/unders, this slows down the loading process.

Even more so when you consider that it was a hammer gun!!

(although I disagree about the number that have self ejectors. Most SxS seem to nowadays)

 

[odd jim]

*****So why did it take 22 hours to stop Raoul Moat?*****

Fact is, most people would not approach a person with a shotgun - especially if they've just fired 2 shots at you/other people. Yes, it's possible to use the reload time to take him down, but would that actually happen in reality? Nope.

There's also an argument with the RM case to say if UK police officers were armed, he may have been taken down earlier - but I still don't want the regular officer to be armed in the UK. (Not that it affects me much now, but the UK will always be "The Mother Land")

Eh?? Because they couldn't find him!

And you're trying to tell me you'd wait, let him break the barrel and remove the spent shells, then manually place each live shell in their respective barrels, wait for him to flick the safety back off and stand there and let him shoot you??? No I'd suggest you'd use the time to run. With an auto rifle that option would t be available to you after just the 2nd shot.

I can't see what the rest has got to do with my point? You guys aren't getting so I'm off to bed...

 

[DemiLion]

Eh?? Because they couldn't find him!

Yup, he was hiding in a drain...


...Oh ... And waiting for Gazza to turn up with the pizza 'n bevvies!

 

[odd jim]

Yup, he was hiding in a drain...

...Oh ... And waiting for Gazza to turn up with the pizza 'n bevvies!

Lol!

 

[OutLore]

Eh?? Because they couldn't find him!

And you're trying to tell me you'd wait, let him break the barrel and remove the spent shells, then manually place each live shell in their respective barrels, wait for him to flick the safety back off and stand there and let him shoot you??? No I'd suggest you'd use the time to run. With an auto rifle that option would t be available to you after just the 2nd shot.

I can't see what the rest has got to do with my point? You guys aren't getting so I'm off to bed...

No, I think we get it, you're saying that allowing shotguns is ok because you can only kill 2 people with them before possibly being stopped - these people generally don't care about being stopped or caught. The fact is, banning some types of firearm and not others is not really worth it. You've still got the chance of having people on the streets/in schools/wherever with a firearm capable of killing multiple people.

 

[TriggerHappy]

No, I think we get it, you're saying that allowing shotguns is ok because you can only kill 2 people with them before possibly being stopped - these people generally don't care about being stopped or caught. The fact is, banning some types of firearm and not others is not really worth it. You've still got the chance of having people on the streets/in schools/wherever with a firearm capable of killing multiple people.

That's a bizarre argument to make. Surely having 2 shots before a slow reload is a better option than having a magazine with 15 shots or whatever and that takes a couple of seconds to reload, if someone is going to be on a public rampage?

I'm not against the ownership of guns, by the way. There's plenty of legitimate uses for many people to own certain types of firearms. I just think the exceptionally relaxed gun control in many US states exacerbates the ease with which mass killings such as these can happen.

 

[Garry Edwards]

No, I think we get it, you're saying that allowing shotguns is ok because you can only kill 2 people with them before possibly being stopped - these people generally don't care about being stopped or caught. The fact is, banning some types of firearm and not others is not really worth it. You've still got the chance of having people on the streets/in schools/wherever with a firearm capable of killing multiple people.

I don't think that anyone is saying that the ability to "only" kill 2 people without reloading is OK. Far from it.

The fact of the matter is that a shotgun, although potentially devastating when used as a weapon at extremely close range, is far less deadly than most firearms.

Every type of firearm requires a very high level of skill (or luck) - it's absolutely nothing like the films... Typically, criminals have no skill.

"Automatic" (actually semi-automatic) pistols with large capacity magazines, and especially when the shooter has a number of spare magazines, are therefore far more dangerous than a shotgun because the shooter can compensate for lack of skill by firing many more shots. And they are much easier to conceal too.