THE Gun Thread

[Lek]

During the 50s and 60s anyone over 18 could by a weapon. There was no registration - no nothing. How many mass shootings were there? What has changed since then?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Between 1965 and 1979 a grand total of  24 mass shootings occurred across the US. This is not a new phenomenon.

[Rev. Rye]

If the cops are supposed to enforce the law, and shooting school children is against the law, wouldn’t the police be obligated to stop the shooter from breaking that law?

While your police don’t have a legal obligation to protect citizens, they DO have an obligation to enforce the law. By standing idly by while children were being murdered, they failed in that obligation.

So, your contention that the police are not obligated to ‘DO ANYTHING’ is bollocks. If they’re not obligated to ‘do anything’, why do they write traffic citations, arrest drunk drivers, catch muggers, respond to domestic violence calls, etc?

Boru

Sorry it offends your sensibilities.


But the fact remains - the SCOTUS has multiple rulings that say that police are not obligated to put themselves in harms way to protect your life.


The man who whacked the monster was motivated because his wife and daughter were in there.....

Which leads to the reality - it takes motivation.....who is going to be more motivated than someone who is in the fire zone?

A teacher with a gun would have a better chance than one without.

Um... Jacob Albarado didn't actually kill the shooter. He even did an interview where he clarified he didn't actually kill him.

Granted, he did evacuate the classrooms in the wing where his daughter was, which I think we can all agree is extremely badass in its own right given that there was an active shooter in the school (and, of course, the fact that he was trained as a border patrol officer helped a lot), but the evidence suggests that it was BORTAC, the tactical team (which did not include Albarado) that took out Salvador Ramos.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Sorry it offends your sensibilities.


But the fact remains - the SCOTUS has multiple rulings that say that police are not obligated to put themselves in harms way to protect your life.

Not attempting to save a school full of children is cowardly regardless of what SCOTUS says.

The man who whacked the monster was motivated because his wife and daughter were in there.....

He did kill the shooter 

Which leads to the reality - it takes motivation.....who is going to be more motivated than someone who is in the fire zone?

The idea that people wouldn't risk their lives to save a school full of children says it all. The idea you would need a better motive is just surreal....

A teacher with a gun would have a better chance than one without.

Nope a teacher with a gun is just as useless and far more dangerous than one without one 

Watch this idea fall to basic logic 

[onlinebiker]

Sorry it offends your sensibilities.


But the fact remains - the SCOTUS has multiple rulings that say that police are not obligated to put themselves in harms way to protect your life.


The man who whacked the monster was motivated because his wife and daughter were in there.....

Which leads to the reality - it takes motivation.....who is going to be more motivated than someone who is in the fire zone?

A teacher with a gun would have a better chance than one without.

It’s not ABOUT protecting anyone’s life, it’s about enforcing the law. Shooting people is against the law. The way you enforce the law is to stop the shooter. A cop who does nothing while someone is breaking a law is derelict in his/her duty. It says so right in the job description - ‘law enforcement’.

Boru

Oh grow up.

A cop does not have to enforce ANY law if he feels it puts his life at risk. That' s what SCOTUS ruled.


Don' t like that? March your sanctimonious self on down to the Supreme Court, bust on in - and tell them.they don' t know what the fuck they' re doing.....



I' m sure they' ll be happy to hear it...

[The Architect Of Fate]

Oh grow up.

A cop does not have to enforce ANY law if he feels it puts his life at risk. That' s what SCOTUS ruled.

Yup in other words if they are too cowardly to save a school full of kids then that's okay.... Because the SCOTUS said so.....

Don' t like that? March your sanctimonious self on down to the Supreme Court, bust on in - and tell them.they don' t know what the fuck they' re doing.....

Or simply condemn the cops who think a SCOTUS ruling gets them off the hook for allowing a bunch of kids to die....

I' m sure they' ll be happy to hear it...

Considering the current group of judges I don't think they know what they are doing....

[The Grand Nudger]

During the 50s and 60s anyone over 18 could by a weapon. There was no registration - no nothing. How many mass shootings were there?  What has changed since then?

Mass shootings at schools go back, on record in the us, to 1891.  Not 1970.  Ultimately I doubt that very much has changed in the crime or it's motivations in all that time except the weapons available. Killing is as old as the hills, we didn't discover it in 1970....and we certainly weren't any less violent through the fifties and sixties......

[onlinebiker]

During the 50s and 60s anyone over 18 could by a weapon. There was no registration - no nothing. How many mass shootings were there?  What has changed since then?

Mass shootings at schools go back, on record in the us, to 1891.  Not 1970.  Ultimately I doubt that very much has changed in the crime or it's motivations in all that time except the weapons available.  Killing is as old as the hills, we didn't discover it in 1970....and we certainly weren't any less violent through the fifties and sixties......

And they happened every week, right?

Oh - and guns were ROUTINELY brought into schools. (They absolutely were - most schools had rifle teams AND SHOT ON SCHOOL GROUNDS........)

Oddly - the kids didn' t shoot each other like the freakshow monsters they grow these days.....

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, more kids have more access to a better quality weapon than ever before. I suppose somebody should do something about it before the freakshow monsters manage to kill more kids?

Actually, the first three on record happened within months of each other between 1891 and 1892 - and, mind you..I'm just limiting myself to mass shootings at schools. They really took off when obama was elected, though, couldn't imagine why.

[onlinebiker]

Yeah, more kids have more access to a better quality weapon than ever before.  I suppose somebody should do something about it before the freakshow monsters manage to kill more kids?  

Actually, the first three on record happened within months of each other between 1891 and 1892 - and, mind you..I'm just limiting myself to mass shootings at schools.  They really took off when obama was elected, though, couldn't imagine why.

You' re full of shit.

Any 18 year old (for that matter - older looking 14 year old) in 1927 could walk down to the local hardware store and buy a Thompson submachine gun. No paperwork. Just give the man your money and take your gun, 100 round magazines and a case of .45 acp ammo home. No NICS check. No waiting period.


How often did they shoot up schools with Tommyguns? (and up close a .45 acp will do all the damage a .223 will do - and more)

To my knowledge - never.

Hell for that matter - they could pick up a case of dynamite at the same time. Need fuse and blasting caps with that?