Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

PaizoCon 2014!

Another school shooting


Off-Topic Discussions

851 to 900 of 1,152 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | next > last >>

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Whether you acttually enforce it or not doesn't matter, but when one guy has a gun and you don't, what authority do you have over him? What authority do you have over anything?

Besides complete madness, no one kill for no reason, when killing means loosing all the benefit of why you kill for most of human stop.

The European way to reduce the lethality of madness is to reduce the availability of the most dangerous weapons: firearms.
It's working here and our DNA is the same.

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
I don't trust a government, because no matter how well designed, eventually someone will reach the point of being able to use it for their own ends. Governments should answer to the people, but when the people have no authority, the government can do what it wants.

So lets take the example of Libya or Syria, governments that turned against its population.

Even with your super-soldier skills and your gun you're no match against a dozen of tanks backed-up by planes dropping bomb on your house!
So what do you expect? If the US government turns mad your life expectancy won't be much longer than the time for a missile launched by a drone to reach you.
So what's the point to have pistols and rifles? It won't make much difference for the thousand pound warhead of a tomahawk!

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Maybe you'll be lucky and the government will operate as you desire, without a higher authority, but look at the past, how many nations are still standing that have never had problems between the people and the government?

I do vote and, being in a democratic country, you can also. There is no luck involved, if you want your country never to fail you utterly, vote!

DarkLightHitomi wrote:
It's not just about crime, it's my rights as a human being, and the potential for such rights to become meaningless.

It is for as long as the law considers so...


@ GentleGiant
So it's ok to own a firearm if you truly need it, but not because you want to own one in case you need it? But then any actual need for one is entirely suspect in your mind, and therefore invalid. So the only result for you is, one never needs to own a firearm. And also, let's not forget that temper tantrum, folks.
You must live in a very controlled environment, one with little change or expectation of change for any reason. You have things neat and ordered, everything in their place, with little to no room for deviance. Your day to day life is the same as the day before, and the same will occur tomorrow.
You're also frightened by chaos, and things beyond your control. You mitigate this by telling others how they feel, and try to make them fit into your paradigm, taking control of them also in the process. If there's no chaos around you, there can not be anything that could threaten your bubble. Just because you can not forsee a need for something, it must also then follow that others must not either.
Unwillingness to accept variance is unhealthy. When you encounter it in great degree, there is high probability you will snap, and become a danger to others around you. Seek help.

Shadow Lodge

Kryzbyn wrote:

Valid points.
The first I already clarified to Bugley. Of course, once I theoreticly go insane, it'd be too late. But the point is I'm willing to surrender that right if I become a danger to others, without hesitation, wahtever the reason.

And who gets to decide that?

The you thats too insane to have one is the one that gets to decide if you're too insane to have one. We don't have any kind of sanity detector, much less one that can be hooked up to a gun safe.

Quote:
To the second point, I saw the need, obviously. I guess in my circumstances, that's really all that mattered.

Well why not some sort of shotgun or long arm? they're more accurate

Quote:
The only way to prevent anyone from getting a firearm in all circumstances is to eliminate their manufacture. Globally. None anywhere, ever. Not for police, military or civilian use. I don't think this is realistic.

Banning types of weapons to civilians has worked, even in the us, to keep machine guns sub machine guns etc out of civilian hands. Every bootlegger used to have a tommygun and we've managed to phase those out of civilian hands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

This thread needs a limit on the number of posts. Like 2 per poster/day. Every time I turn around it has 2 new pages.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

On a lighter note, 99.9% of all 80+ million law-abiding gun owners killed no one yesterday.

As with any societal problem, this shooting was not a product of "guns" - "assault" rifles (which were not used, contrary to some reports, but it certainly makes a more dynamic story!), handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc. The shooting was a product of many factors, mostly behavioral. Attempting to justify the restriction of firearm ownership as if that is suddenly the 'magic cure' to preventing 'mass killing' is as unintelligent as trying to ban fast food restaurants for making people fat.

I haven't scrolled back through 17+ pages to see if someone has already mentioned this, but the worst 'mass killing' at a school done in the United States to date was in 1927. The Bath School distaster, which killed 38 school children, 6 adults, and injured 58 others. Golly, he must have had an 'assault rifle', huh?

Nope. Dynamite and pyrotol. You can make explosives like that with a rudimentary understanding of chemistry and physics - and a trip to the local convenience store.

Root Cause Analysis 101: A person does not suddenly realize that they have the ability to legally purchase firearms and then decide to exercise that ability to facilitate going on a killing spree. "Mass" murderers, as any objective study will show, decide that they need to KILL, and then will use whatever methods lie at their disposal. And guess what? They don't respect 'laws' in the first place - what makes anyone think that a ban on a certain type of weapon will suddenly make them unavailable? History and common sense dictate otherwise.

The over-all point being: laws ALREADY exist governing who gets to own firearms and who doesn't, and of what firearms they can buy (yes, Virginia, there are still bans in effect for certain types and classes of firearms, both at state and federal levels).

More laws restricting firearms are not what is needed. An understanding of this perpetrator's motives and beliefs is needed, and using that information to deflect or curtail similar behavior that might be present in others going forward.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

And who gets to decide that?

The you thats too insane to have one is the one that gets to decide if you're too insane to have one. We don't have any kind of sanity detector, much less one that can be hooked up to a gun safe.

I understand and agree. I don't know why you're pressing the point here. I'm merely saying I'm ok with mental screening as a prelude to gun ownership, and would be willign to undergo one to keep mine.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Well why not some sort of shotgun or long arm? they're more accurate

Because of movement/use in close quarters, like the inside of my townhome. If I owned a bigger house with more room to maneuver, I would consider a change.

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Banning types of weapons to civilians has worked, even in the us, to keep machine guns sub machine guns etc out of civilian hands. Every bootlegger used to have a tommygun and we've managed to phase those out of civilian hands.

Indeed.

Taldor

pres man wrote:
Guy Humual wrote:
pres man wrote:
I agree with the people that say that armed civilians aren't going to be able to go all Rambo on the attacker and drop them with a single precise shot to the head. That is pure fantasy. But I disagree that there would be no effect if people were armed. It would slow down the attacker and thus give those people with proper training time to arrive and neutralize the attacker.
Having to reload every five or six shots would also slow the attacker down, probably at the cost of less lives.
Unless they had multiple weapons. Of course it doesn't have to be either-or.

Suppose the attacker had three revolvers with him, that's 18 shots, that's still less then a 20 round semi automatic hand gun and it's still going to take time to switch weapons never mind reloading.

Shadow Lodge

swashbuckler wrote:
As with any societal problem, this shooting was not a product of "guns" - "assault" rifles (which were not used, contrary to some reports, but it certainly makes a more dynamic story!),

Citation? Every source i can find is saying that it was the bushmaster. Are you saying that wasn't the gun or that the bushmaster isn't an assault rifle?


Swashbuckler wrote:
Root Cause Analysis 101: A person does not suddenly realize that they have the ability to legally purchase firearms and then decide to exercise that ability to facilitate going on a killing spree. "Mass" murderers, as any objective study will show, decide that they need to KILL, and then will use whatever methods lie at their disposal.

You have 10,000 victims of gun violence every year, it makes more than one dead per hour!

Since year 2000 you got around 4,000 people victims of terrorism or mass murder and on the other hand around 100,000 killed by guns an other way.
Don't you see the ratio? Don't you see any problem??
Your logic protects you from 4% of the problem and let you exposed to 96% of that problem.

Swashbuckler wrote:
They don't respect 'laws' in the first place - what makes anyone think that a ban on a certain type of weapon will suddenly make them unavailable? History and common sense dictate otherwise.

World history proves the opposite.

Check all big countries coming out from WWII in arm, only the US has this high level of possession of firearms.
Other countries were giving back the firearms they had over the the last decades.
Open your eyes: British, Spanish, Italians, Germans, French, Soviets, Japanese were giving back their weapons when asked by their government or authorities.

Taldor

Swashbuckler wrote:
On a lighter note, 99.9% of all 80+ million law-abiding gun owners killed no one yesterday.

This isn't a "let's dump on all the law-abiding gun owners thread", this is a "what a tragedy, how can we stop this from happening again" thread. Course if you and all the other law-abiding gun owners need a pat on the back for not going out and killing a bunch of people (what most people view as normal) then: congratulations! Thanks for not murdering anyone yesterday!


BigNorseWolf wrote:
swashbuckler wrote:
As with any societal problem, this shooting was not a product of "guns" - "assault" rifles (which were not used, contrary to some reports, but it certainly makes a more dynamic story!),
Citation? Every source i can find is saying that it was the bushmaster. Are you saying that wasn't the gun or that the bushmaster isn't an assault rifle?

Probably quibbling about the definition of assault rifle. It usually require full auto/burst capability. The Bushmaster used was a semi-auto, so not really an assault rifle.

It would probably have fallen under the old Assault Weapons ban, which used a complicated and much criticized definition. (Enough that I suspect some of problems would slipped in by gun rights supporters to discredit the law.)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:

@ GentleGiant

So it's ok to own a firearm if you truly need it, but not because you want to own one in case you need it? But then any actual need for one is entirely suspect in your mind, and therefore invalid. So the only result for you is, one never needs to own a firearm. And also, let's not forget that temper tantrum, folks.
You must live in a very controlled environment, one with little change or expectation of change for any reason. You have things neat and ordered, everything in their place, with little to no room for deviance. Your day to day life is the same as the day before, and the same will occur tomorrow.
You're also frightened by chaos, and things beyond your control. You mitigate this by telling others how they feel, and try to make them fit into your paradigm, taking control of them also in the process. If there's no chaos around you, there can not be anything that could threaten your bubble. Just because you can not forsee a need for something, it must also then follow that others must not either.
Unwillingness to accept variance is unhealthy. When you encounter it in great degree, there is high probability you will snap, and become a danger to others around you. Seek help.

Nice piece of pocket psychology there. Utterly off the mark, though.

Being afraid of the big bad US government and feeling you have to stockpile weapons to fight it when it finally falls or become utterly corrupt and turns on the population... that's not healthy skepticism, that's outright paranoia.
Just because I don't subscribe to that delusion doesn't mean that I (or others) fit into the weird little psychological "profile" you put up here.
Also, I'm impressed at the number of strawmen you managed to put into one post.


@ GG
The point of that post was that trying to psycho analayze others is condescending and rude, especially when you dont know what the feezy you're talking about. Not everyone fits in these little boxes you've constructed to put them in. Glad you got that. Please refrain from it in the future, and I will as well.

None of the rest of your post applies to me, either, so thanks!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
Swashbuckler wrote:

The over-all point being: laws ALREADY exist governing who gets to own firearms and who doesn't, and of what firearms they can buy (yes, Virginia, there are still bans in effect for certain types and classes of firearms, both at state and federal levels).

More laws restricting firearms are not what is needed.

Welcome to the thread, I suggest you read it all since most of your points have been addressed. Unless you just want to do a single post and then leave again.

As for laws. I hope you're aware of the fact that even people on government terrorlists are able to buy weapons from private persons, often at gun shows in the South or online, because there's no background check. Criminals can do the same as can people with mental health issues.
So no, laws don't ALREADY exist governing which firearms they can buy.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:

@ GG

The point of that post was that trying to psycho analayze others is condescending and rude, especially when you dont know what the feezy you're talking about. Not everyone fits in these little boxes you've constructed to put them in. Glad you got that. Please refrain from it in the future, and I will as well.

None of the rest of your post applies to me, either, so thanks!

It's not difficult to analyze the actual words people like DarkLightHitomi, Andrew R and Killer_GM write, especially when they outright say that they fear the government doing what I described. They have absolutely nothing to back that up, thus it's unfounded fears and paranoia.


As long as you realize not all folks who own firearms fit into that bucket.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Yes, lets protect freedom by ... forcing people to live exactly how we want, scheduling their lives 24/7, and deciding which counties foreign resources are worth sending them to die for. And if they object, lock them in jail.

Heh...do you steal candy from babies, too? ;-)


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion Subscriber
Kryzbyn wrote:
As long as you realize not all folks who own firearms fit into that bucket.

Never claimed everyone did.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kryzbyn wrote:
As long as you realize not all folks who own firearms fit into that bucket.

Obviously not. It's always kind of surprising to me how many of the outspoken defenders of gun rights seem to bring it up though.

A lot of the crime reasons brought up seem unreasonable to me as well. The bit earlier in the discussion about needing large capacity magazines to hold off sustained attacks by multiple armed attackers, or the assertion that there are places in the country you can't survive without being heavily armed, or even just the general premise that you can be attacked at any moment and you always need to be prepared. That's true to some extent, but the prevalence of violent crime that seems to be implied is far out of line with reality.


GentleGiant wrote:
As for laws. I hope you're aware of the fact that even people on government terrorlists are able to buy weapons from private persons, often at gun shows in the South or online, because there's no background check.

The way some people get listed on the terrorlists is far from clear...

Background check is not enough as someone can develop mental instability decades later or can have his/her mental capacities altered by elder age or just medicine.
A real check would be intrusive beyond what a democratic system can accept.


Swashbuckler wrote:
I haven't scrolled back through 17+ pages to see if someone has already mentioned this, but the worst 'mass killing' at a school done in the United States to date was in 1927. The Bath School disaster, which killed 38 school children, 6 adults, and injured 58 others. Golly, he must have had an 'assault rifle', huh?

I realize it might fit in a different category (domestic terrorism?), but the Oklahoma bombing killed killed 168 people, including 19 children in the day care center on the second floor, and injured 450 others. I do not believe any firearms or even more traditional explosives were used to do it.


Kryzbyn wrote:
As long as you realize not all folks who own firearms fit into that bucket.

Any one can get out of his mind for a short time. Given there is a weapon in his/her range there's a chance for a drama.

Therefore anyone with a firearm nearby (not just the owner) is a potential danger. It makes too many people to control and at the end too many victims not to do anything!


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
pres man wrote:
I realize it might fit in a different category (domestic terrorism?), but the Oklahoma bombing killed killed 168 people, including 19 children in the day care center on the second floor, and injured 450 others. I do not believe any firearms or even more traditional explosives were used to do it.

ANFO has to be considered a traditional explosive.


It may just be me, but the 'I need guns to protect me from the US government' and 'any gun owner is a potential danger' seem to be opposite sides of the hyperbole coin. The reality is probably somewhere in the middle, where most gun owners are responsible, and the gov't is not actually trying to take away anyones guns or put them in a camp.


Mark Sweetman wrote:
pres man wrote:
I realize it might fit in a different category (domestic terrorism?), but the Oklahoma bombing killed killed 168 people, including 19 children in the day care center on the second floor, and injured 450 others. I do not believe any firearms or even more traditional explosives were used to do it.
ANFO has to be considered a traditional explosive.

Yeah, you are right, I was thinking along the lines of sticks of dynamite.


Killer_GM wrote:
Nicos wrote:


I do not see how not having a 4-inch knife is a great loss compared to safety of that society. I mean the goverment DO have power an authority over you.

You have a car but there are speed limits, you can drink bur only afther certain age, you can smoke marih... (oh wait), etc.

Ido not see how the "right" to have weapons, particulary high powered weapons, can be so important to some people.

Nicos, I find your view regretable. Why should you not have the right to be adequately armed, in order to defend yourself. Do you really believe anyone who would seek to rob you or do you harm in some way is going to be concerned with the law prohibiting having an unauthorized weapon on their person? They won't, and they will be armed. Why should you be at the mercy of someone who would do you harm. I comprehend that to some on these message boards, that sounds strange or extreme. I deal with people in prison on a daily basis who have used weapons & firearms in the commission of crimes. It happens every day. In today's world, I would not tell you that you should have to beg a government for the ability to protect yourself.

Limitations are not the same as prohibitions. I don't oppose limitations on certain things. I am not in favor of minors having firearms. Brain formation does not complete until the early 20's. Life experience also helps in improving one's decision making skills. If you're an adult, and not an immediate threat to yourself of others, carrying a knife shouldn't be an issue for your government to intrude on.

I am just saying that i prefer A safer society instead of the false security of a gun.

Compared to other developed countries the US is incredibly dangerous, I do not undesrtand how your society coexist with that much violence without realizing that something have to change.


GentleGiant wrote:

Let's examine a likely scenario.

Gunman enters a mall and starts shooting. People start screaming, crying and run all over the place to get away from the shooter.
Concealed carry permit guy #1 fumbles around for his weapon and finally gets it out. He's incredibly lucky and with his first couple of shots he hits the original gunman once without hitting anyone else. The gunman goes down (wounded? dead? no one knows at this point).
Hearing the first shots and the commotion CCP #2 and #3 rush to the scene because they are of the conviction that they can take down the shooter. They arrive and see a guy standing with a drawn weapon along with several people lying on the ground bleeding. They start shooting, again with incredible luck not hitting anyone but their target (well, most of their shots don't hit anything but the surroundings), and take down the armed man.
Except this wasn't the original gunman, but CCP #1.

You can put alternative things in there. Maybe they start yelling at CCP #1, he then mistakes them (since they have weapons drawn) to be accomplices of the gunman and starts shooting at them etc.

More guns in a tense situation only escalates it, this is seen over and over again where people have disagreements over stupid things and suddenly someone pulls out a gun and starts shooting.

You know, at first I was going to dismiss your situation here. But I decide to look at it again. And even in it, there are going to still be less people overall harmed than in a more traditional, 1 gunman versus large crowd of unarmed bystanders. Yes, in your situation our would-be-hero gets dropped by other would-be-heroes, but ultimately more lives are saved.

And that is really the issue isn't it. We all want the number of lives lost to decrease. We all accept that reducing the number of lives lost to 0 is impossible. Humans have been killing each other even before we developed the first club, no lack of technology is going to stop that. No, we have been trying to reduce the number of people killed. Both of our methods accomplished that, no weapons in public or more responsible people with weapons in public. The question is merely what "feels" better for us as a culture.

Nicos wrote:
Compared to other developed countries the US is incredibly dangerous, I do not undesrtand how your society coexist with that much violence without realizing that something have to change.

I would suggest perhaps you are getting a shewed view of the reality. It isn't as bad as people maybe giving the impression. A lot of violence is very localized to certain areas. It sucks if you live in those areas, but the majority of people do not. That is why the shooting at the school is so traumatic, it was a typically very safe area.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
thejeff wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
As long as you realize not all folks who own firearms fit into that bucket.

Obviously not. It's always kind of surprising to me how many of the outspoken defenders of gun rights seem to bring it up though.

I suspect that's because the rest of us rarely bother to participate in these threads.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Card Game, Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Angstspawn wrote:
Therefore anyone with a firearm nearby (not just the owner) is a potential danger.

That sounds a lot like what the gun people are saying about the government.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
swashbuckler wrote:
As with any societal problem, this shooting was not a product of "guns" - "assault" rifles (which were not used, contrary to some reports, but it certainly makes a more dynamic story!),
Citation? Every source i can find is saying that it was the bushmaster. Are you saying that wasn't the gun or that the bushmaster isn't an assault rifle?

Probably quibbling about the definition of assault rifle. It usually require full auto/burst capability. The Bushmaster used was a semi-auto, so not really an assault rifle.

It would probably have fallen under the old Assault Weapons ban, which used a complicated and much criticized definition. (Enough that I suspect some of problems would slipped in by gun rights supporters to discredit the law.)

Bushmaster is a firearms manufacturer, not a weapon. A semi-automatic weapon is not necessarily an "assault rifle". A fully automatic rifle with several other key characteristics is what makes an assault rifle per the 1994 AWB, not some shoddy reporter's poor use of language.

And no, it wouldn't have fallen under the provisions of that Act, which I can state as someone who works with that industry daily. The biggest irony is that the AWB facilitated the creation of more firearms manufacturers than any other single piece of legislation in the country's history.

Angstspawn wrote:
You have 10,000 victims of gun violence every year, it makes more than one dead per hour!

Exactly 10,000? Wow, where'd you get that number? Actually, you're low. Numbers I've seen from 2009 put it over 30,000 firearms-related deaths each year, none of which are homicides. Homicides come in around 16,000, but not all are firearms-related. Same set of stats show over 39,000 deaths from drug-induced sources including prescribed and non-prescribed sources, as well as poisoning. Not included in that number is homicide-related drug-induced deaths. A separate stat shows over 24,000 deaths due to alcohol. Heck, there's even 33,000+ deaths from automobile accidents.

So which of these other causes should we ban?

Your other comment regarding what countries have "given back" weapons after WWII is so far out of context that I won't bother addressing it.

@ Guy Humual: No pats needed, just tired of seeing the illogical tirade against the ownership of firearms. You are free to interpret it as you like, however.


Angstspawn wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
As long as you realize not all folks who own firearms fit into that bucket.

Any one can get out of his mind for a short time. Given there is a weapon in his/her range there's a chance for a drama.

Therefore anyone with a firearm nearby (not just the owner) is a potential danger. It makes too many people to control and at the end too many victims not to do anything!

I'm going to let you in on a little secret ... people kill people all the time. And not with guns.

Some examples (source):

Arson, Stabbing Rampage in Seoul South Korea : 10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5 from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. An angry man felt people “looked down on him.”

Anti-police stabbing spree in Shanghai, China: 7/2008. 6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. 28 year old man angry at police attacked a police station with a knife.

Akihabara Massacre, Chiyoda City, Tokyo, Japan: 6/8/2008. 7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. Man slammed into a crowd with his car, then jumped out and began stabbing people to death.

18 year old slashes 4 to death in Sitka, Alaska, US: 3/25/2008. 4 people killed. 18 year old (old enough to purchase a rifle over the counter) kills 4 people, related to him, with a 5 inch knife.

Stabbing Spree kills 2, Tsuchiura, Japan: 3/23/2008. 2 killed, 7 wounded. Man “just wanted to kill anyone.”

Stabbing spree wounds 41, 6 seriously in Berlin Train Station: 5/26/2006. 41 wounded, 6 seriously. Thankfully no one died in this attack, but not for lack of trying on the part of the drunk 16 year old.

4 killed in stabbing spree in London, UK: 9/2004. 4 killed, 2 wounded. Mentally ill man attacks mostly older people.

6 killed over Xbox dispute in Deltona, Florida, US: 8/6/2004. 6 killed. 4 men (all old enough to legally purchase firearms) bludgeon 6 people to death with baseball bats over purloined Xbox.

Daegu subway fire, Daegu, South Korea: 2/18/2003. 198 killed, 147 injured. A 56 year old unemployed taxi driver, dissatisfied with his medical treatment, sets fire to a crowded train.

Osaka School Massacre, Osaka Japan: 6/8/2001. 8 children dead, 13 other children and 2 teachers wounded. Committed by 37 year old former janitor armed with a kitchen knife.

So ... maybe we should just ban people. That'd be easier to 'control', right?


Swashbuckler wrote:
thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
swashbuckler wrote:
As with any societal problem, this shooting was not a product of "guns" - "assault" rifles (which were not used, contrary to some reports, but it certainly makes a more dynamic story!),
Citation? Every source i can find is saying that it was the bushmaster. Are you saying that wasn't the gun or that the bushmaster isn't an assault rifle?

Probably quibbling about the definition of assault rifle. It usually require full auto/burst capability. The Bushmaster used was a semi-auto, so not really an assault rifle.

It would probably have fallen under the old Assault Weapons ban, which used a complicated and much criticized definition. (Enough that I suspect some of problems would slipped in by gun rights supporters to discredit the law.)

Bushmaster is a firearms manufacturer, not a weapon. A semi-automatic weapon is not necessarily an "assault rifle". A fully automatic rifle with several other key characteristics is what makes an assault rifle per the 1994 AWB, not some shoddy reporter's poor use of language.

And no, it wouldn't have fallen under the provisions of that Act, which I can state as someone who works with that industry daily. The biggest irony is that the AWB facilitated the creation of more firearms manufacturers than any other single piece of legislation in the country's history.

1) I am aware that Bushmaster is a company. They made the rifle in question. It's apparently an AR-15 knockoff.

2) As I said, it's not an assault rifle.
3) The 1994 AWB banned semi-automatic weapons that had some other key characteristics. I don't know enough of the details of the weapon in question to say. It does have a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, so only one of the other banned features would be needed.
It wouldn't have had to be fully automatic.
Fully automatic weapons were and still are regulated under other laws. They were not covered by the 1994 AWB.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Anyone else notice how every time this thread seems to be moving toward some kind of understanding, someone (who clearly hasn't read what has come before) jumps in with arguments from five pages ago? :(


Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Swashbuckler wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Probably quibbling about the definition of assault rifle. It usually require full auto/burst capability. The Bushmaster used was a semi-auto, so not really an assault rifle.
It would probably have fallen under the old Assault Weapons ban, which used a complicated and much criticized definition. (Enough that I suspect some of problems would slipped in by gun rights supporters to discredit the law.)

Bushmaster is a firearms manufacturer, not a weapon. A semi-automatic weapon is not necessarily an "assault rifle". A fully automatic rifle with several other key characteristics is what makes an assault rifle per the 1994 AWB, not some shoddy reporter's poor use of language.

And no, it wouldn't have fallen under the provisions of that Act, which I can state as someone who works with that industry daily. The biggest irony is that the AWB facilitated the creation of more firearms manufacturers than any other single piece of legislation in the country's history.

It's pretty much a quibble over definitions. The Bushmaster XM-15 is part of their M4 carbine family and is based on the AR-15. It is typically manufactured to be semi-automatic for the civilian market but the M4 can be built as fully auto. So it's not like calling it an assault rifle is out of the ballpark by any means.

As far as whether or not it would pass the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, I'm not so sure it would. Semi-automatic + pistol grip and flash suppressor are enough criteria met to fit the definition, I believe.


@ Bugleyman:
Indeed.


Bill Dunn wrote:

It's pretty much a quibble over definitions. The Bushmaster XM-15 is part of their M4 carbine family and is based on the AR-15. It is typically manufactured to be semi-automatic for the civilian market but the M4 can be built as fully auto. So it's not like calling it an assault rifle is out of the ballpark by any means.

As far as whether or not it would pass the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban, I'm not so sure it would. Semi-automatic + pistol grip and flash suppressor are enough criteria met to fit the definition, I believe.

Much of the confusion comes from bad naming. If the 1994 law hadn't been called "Assault Weapons Ban", but something that didn't sound like an existing category of weapons, everything would be much simple.

"Assault rifles" are fully automatic military rifles.
"Assault weapons" are semi-automatic weapons with some, mostly cosmetic, features of assault rifles. They are often built to mimic actual assault rifles in everything but full auto.

Part of the problem may be that they can't be easily distinguished at a glance in a crisis. The police like to know what they're facing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Swashbuckler wrote:
Exactly 10,000? Wow, where'd you get that number?

I took a number that represent more or less the average number of victims according to National Institute of Justice.

Is it that important they were much more victims in 2009?? I think it's just too much.

Swashbuckler wrote:
Your other comment regarding what countries have "given back" weapons after WWII is so far out of context that I won't bother addressing it.

Only because you don't know enough about post-war life, firearms availability and how those countries fought it over several decades.

Swashbuckler wrote:
So ... maybe we should just ban people. That'd be easier to 'control', right?

Not including China (because I don't have any reliable figures about it) all the country you named are less violent than the USA, all have a lower crime rate. All have in common very restrictive firearms legislation, is it what you wanted to demonstrate? That the US should ban guns to see its crime rate reducing to the level observed in other civilized countries.

Taldor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Swashbuckler wrote:
Angstspawn wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
As long as you realize not all folks who own firearms fit into that bucket.

Any one can get out of his mind for a short time. Given there is a weapon in his/her range there's a chance for a drama.

Therefore anyone with a firearm nearby (not just the owner) is a potential danger. It makes too many people to control and at the end too many victims not to do anything!

I'm going to let you in on a little secret ... people kill people all the time. And not with guns.

Some examples (source):

Arson, Stabbing Rampage in Seoul South Korea : 10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5 from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. An angry man felt people “looked down on him.”

Anti-police stabbing spree in Shanghai, China: 7/2008. 6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. 28 year old man angry at police attacked a police station with a knife.

Akihabara Massacre, Chiyoda City, Tokyo, Japan: 6/8/2008. 7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. Man slammed into a crowd with his car, then jumped out and began stabbing people to death.

18 year old slashes 4 to death in Sitka, Alaska, US: 3/25/2008. 4 people killed. 18 year old (old enough to purchase a rifle over the counter) kills 4 people, related to him, with a 5 inch knife.

Stabbing Spree kills 2, Tsuchiura, Japan: 3/23/2008. 2 killed, 7 wounded. Man “just wanted to kill anyone.”

Stabbing spree wounds 41, 6 seriously in Berlin Train Station: 5/26/2006. 41 wounded, 6 seriously. Thankfully no one died in this attack, but not for lack of trying on the part of the drunk 16 year old.

4 killed in stabbing spree in London, UK: 9/2004. 4 killed, 2 wounded. Mentally ill man attacks mostly older people.

6 killed over Xbox dispute in Deltona, Florida, US: 8/6/2004. 6 killed. 4 men (all old enough to legally purchase firearms)...

Notice anything about that list? Like how stabbing sprees don't seem to leave as many dead as shooting sprees? No one is saying that control will stop people from killing each other, most of us here aren't even asking for a ban on guns, but what many of us would like to see is tighter restrictions on high payload semi automatic weapons. Now there's lots of ways people can kill people, but if you're looking to kill people right now, in the US, there is no better alternative then a gun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Guy Humual wrote:
Notice anything about that list? Like how stabbing sprees don't seem to leave as many dead as shooting sprees?

I'm sure most if not all those supporting guns know how much the lethality of firearms improved over time and how much more dangerous than any kind of blade they are.

Most of them just feel powerful with a gun and powerless without, they're afraid they won't be able to confront the world without a firearm. They're so much afraid of agression that it took shape inside their mind, in their mind their agressors are always stronger so they need a gun to get a higher ground. They need a huge firepower to compensate their powerlessness.
They're always ready because they never feel safe.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Killer_GM wrote:

Scott Betts wrote:

The Constitution isn't sacred. Stop acting like it is. It's a document, and it was designed to be altered and is open to reinterpretation as the realities of the evolving world demand.

I beg to differ. The moment you determine that any portion of the Constitution can be significantly altered,

You mean sort of like exactly what the founding fathers decided when they included language in the Constitution that allows for its amendment, which includes the ability to significantly alter both its text and its interpretation?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Swashbuckler wrote:
On a lighter note, 99.9% of all 80+ million law-abiding gun owners killed no one yesterday.

Allow me to join the chorus of people praising gun owners for managing to get through an entire day without accidentally committing murder.

Quote:
As with any societal problem, this shooting was not a product of "guns" - "assault" rifles (which were not used, contrary to some reports, but it certainly makes a more dynamic story!), handguns, shotguns, rifles, etc. The shooting was a product of many factors, mostly behavioral. Attempting to justify the restriction of firearm ownership as if that is suddenly the 'magic cure' to preventing 'mass killing' is as unintelligent as trying to ban fast food restaurants for making people fat.

We have pretty clear evidence that restricting the availability of firearms plays a role in reducing mass shooting events.

Quote:

I haven't scrolled back through 17+ pages to see if someone has already mentioned this, but the worst 'mass killing' at a school done in the United States to date was in 1927. The Bath School distaster, which killed 38 school children, 6 adults, and injured 58 others. Golly, he must have had an 'assault rifle', huh?

Nope. Dynamite and pyrotol. You can make explosives like that with a rudimentary understanding of chemistry and physics - and a trip to the local convenience store.

And yet, FOR SOME STRANGE REASON, when people are denied the ability to go on a shooting rampage with guns, they tend not to end up resorting to explosives instead.

Quote:
Root Cause Analysis 101:

Oh dear.

Quote:
A person does not suddenly realize that they have the ability to legally purchase firearms and then decide to exercise that ability to facilitate going on a killing spree. "Mass" murderers, as any objective study will show, decide that they need to KILL, and then will use whatever methods lie at their disposal.

That's our point. We'd prefer that the weapon at their disposal, if they must choose something, be something decidedly less deadly than a firearm.

Quote:
And guess what? They don't respect 'laws' in the first place - what makes anyone think that a ban on a certain type of weapon will suddenly make them unavailable? History and common sense dictate otherwise.

Yay for "logic"!

"Mass killers will use whatever they have on hand!"

"Mass killers don't respect laws, and therefore will have no problem going out of their way to get their hands on illegal weaponry!"

And you can literally say both of these things in the same paragraph, and not see a problem with it. Incredible.

Quote:
The over-all point being: laws ALREADY exist governing who gets to own firearms and who doesn't, and of what firearms they can buy (yes, Virginia, there are still bans in effect for certain types and classes of firearms, both at state and federal levels).

Yep. We just believe they are insufficient.

Quote:
More laws restricting firearms are not what is needed. An understanding of this perpetrator's motives and beliefs is needed, and using that information to deflect or curtail similar behavior that might be present in others going forward.

We believe that both are needed. And the best part is that the evidence supports us!


DarkLightHitomi wrote:
We are discussing the fringe, the small minority of the human race, of course it sounds ugly. No I am not paranoid, I just believe in being prepared, being able to take action in any circumstances.

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM


Swashbuckler wrote:
I'm going to let you in on a little secret ... people kill people all the time. And not with guns.

You're right! In fact, the very same day that twenty children were murdered in Connecticut, another attack took place halfway across the world - in China. A man with a knife attacked and slashed 22 children. Four of them were sent to the hospital with serious injuries.

No one died.

So you're absolutely right. Crazy people try to kill people all the time (though, really, it's kind of rare), and sometimes not with guns!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Swashbuckler wrote:
Exactly 10,000? Wow, where'd you get that number? Actually, you're low. Numbers I've seen from 2009 put it over 30,000 firearms-related deaths each year, none of which are homicides. Homicides come in around 16,000, but not all are firearms-related. Same set of stats show over 39,000 deaths from drug-induced sources including prescribed and non-prescribed sources, as well as poisoning. Not included in that number is homicide-related drug-induced deaths. A separate stat shows over 24,000 deaths due to alcohol. Heck, there's even 33,000+ deaths from automobile accidents.

Oooooookay.

We're gonna stop there, and correct some misinformation (for probably the third time this thread).

The 2009 CDC report puts annual firearm-related deaths at in excess of 30,000 annually. This does include homicides, though they don't make up a plurality. The majority of firearm-related deaths are suicides - which, interestingly, increase in probability dramatically if you live in a household with a firearm. A relatively small number are accidental shooting deaths.

Quote:
So which of these other causes should we ban?

None of them, but no one is talking about a ban. It is noteworthy that all the other causes of death you mention above refer to tightly-regulated aspects of life: drugs, alcohol, motor vehicles, etc. The fact that their numbers are comparable to those of firearms suggests that it is reasonable to regulate firearms in a similarly tightly-regulated fashion - especially since all the other causes of death have other, legitimate, not-for-killing-people uses, whereas firearms are specifically designed in such a way as to make adding numbers to the "Annual Firearm-Related Deaths" figure as easy as possible.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
The majority of firearm-related deaths are suicides - which, interestingly, increase in probability dramatically if you live in a household with a firearm.

Complete aside, but why would anyone ever shoot themselves rather than use carbon monoxide or maybe a drug overdose?


bugleyman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
The majority of firearm-related deaths are suicides - which, interestingly, increase in probability dramatically if you live in a household with a firearm.
Complete aside, but why would anyone ever shoot themselves rather than use carbon monoxide or maybe a drug overdose?

Because, most of the time, people who kill themselves aren't thinking clearly?

Also, not everyone has access to a car and drug overdoses are a common type of failed suicide.


thejeff wrote:
bugleyman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
The majority of firearm-related deaths are suicides - which, interestingly, increase in probability dramatically if you live in a household with a firearm.
Complete aside, but why would anyone ever shoot themselves rather than use carbon monoxide or maybe a drug overdose?
Because, most of the time, people who kill themselves aren't thinking clearly?

Also, they tend to be men, and men like things to be a bit more ... dramatic and final.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Killer_GM wrote:
Quite the contrary Bill. I used to work 60 hours per week. I now typically put in about 50 per week. They're not more industrious than I am. In many semi-socialist & outright socialist contries in Europe, workers work for 32-35 hours per week. That's it. France is an example of this. The French government under Sarkozy tried to move the hours French workers work up to 35 hours per week from 32, and there was a massive uproar in many cities in the country and some rioting. The French, and the Europeans in general (except for the Brits and the Germans) want to work 32 hours per week, retire at age 55-60, and be supported by their fellow countrymen with a buffet full of entitlement programs, and have pensions that pay 75%+ of their salaries. Simply put, it is financially UNSUSTAINABLE, and completely entitled. That is why europe is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. They simply cannot pay for all the things they want to "give out for free." Not because they work too much. Rather, they want to take it easy and live 'La Dolce Vita.'

Oh, my. I guess you are uninformed, or misled by conservative outlets about the evils of communist Europe.

First, there is no european country with a 32 hours week. Not one, not even France. Most don't even get a limit.

Second, rioting? Seriously?

Third, the 35 hours week is just a legal milestone, beyond which you get a slightly improved pay. The ACTUAL duration of work in France is 40,2 hours (obviously, it's a median). The country with the shortest work duration is Finland, with 39,2 hours ; and the one with the longest is... Greece, with 42,2 hours. Yes, lazy, bad Greece.

Your information about work in Europe is on par with your knowledge of history.


bugleyman wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
The majority of firearm-related deaths are suicides - which, interestingly, increase in probability dramatically if you live in a household with a firearm.
Complete aside, but why would anyone ever shoot themselves rather than use carbon monoxide or maybe a drug overdose?

That's actually a really interesting question with some really interesting answers.

First, there are some tremendous differences between how the two genders approach suicide. Females, for instance, overwhelmingly choose drug overdose as their preferred method. Males, on the other hand, tend to choose firearms. Locking yourself in the garage and running the car engine doesn't have a big lean to either direction.

As to why someone would choose a gun over another method, suicide by gun is seen, in suicidal ideation, as an instantaneous method of suicide, whereas other methods are slower and more protracted. It also favors the brief nature of many instances of suicidal ideation - if a less spontaneous method were chosen, the individual might have second thoughts and decide not to go through with it. Firearms are also significantly more successful than poisoning/drug overdose or suffocation in terms of actually resulting in the individual's death.

Basically, it's all morbid and terrible.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DarkLightHitomi wrote:
Smarnil le couard wrote:

Of course, the answer is more combat training. And more guns to make good use of it, I guess.

From an european POV, this absolutist pro-gun stance is so far off the map that I can't even understand how the reflex reaction to a school shooting can be to increase the degree of potential violence among the general population.

I mean, isn't it obvious that semi-auto firearms are tools specifically created to make killing more efficient ? And that letting people of every stripe get them freely is a sure way to have efficient mass killings when one of them goes nuts ?

The "I need them to defend myself against the big government" is interesting too, in a sociological kind of way. Hope it works against drones (snarkish comment here).

Come on, as numerous posters have already said, less weapons lying around means less deaths, accidental or otherwise. If a school shooting doesn't demonstrate the need for stricter control nothing will.

You do realize that the best martial artists, are peaceful and often even pacifists.

Teaching then is important because they are parts of our world now, and combat training teaches you more about dicipline and self control and the mental strength to bite down on ones anger, then any other method I've heard of. It also teaches many things that are usefull in everyday life.

Also, the things that seem the biggest time wasters to train, are the things that will save lives in an emergency. Nobody wants to train them because they, either don't comrehend what they stand to gain, or because they believe they will never need it, depsite that fact that such training makes the difference between life and death, on the off chance you get into that kind situation.

Better off prepared for the unlikely, then dead when taken by suprise.

Besides, control and denial are two different things.

I would certainly be fine with needing a license, the same way I need one for a car. So long as procurement of said license is possible for...

Maybe martial artists, but we are talking about guns and the skill to use them here.

I wouldn't mind mandatory unarmed combat training. But it's not the point.

You say you need guns because 'in the real world' everybody has a bunch of them (including burglars, gangstas, etc.).

Not in the real world : in the USA.

In gun-regulating countries, you don't need guns because burglars and small time roughs don't carry one either. Because being caught with one without permit is a sure way to go in jail. It's the case in Europe, and in Chile it seems. Less guns means a lower overall level of agression, and less deaths (suicides, accidents, etc.).

Of course, it would be a long term goal, as reducing the insanely high number of firearms circulating in the USA would take a loooong time... But banning semi-autos could be done, now. They are not self-defence weapons. The benefit you can gain from pumping nine rounds in as much seconds is way smaller than the very real possibility than your agressor could do the same to you (and as the agressor he has a huge bonus to initiative).

851 to 900 of 1,152 << first < prev | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Another school shooting All Messageboards

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.