Eight shot dead including principal in school massacre predicted in YouTube video

[Cletus_Vandam]

Both are stupid arguments.

Nothing is more stupid then the argument you are trying to make. Lets look a little closer to home [at least your home, not mine-that's why I moved to AZ].

The District of Columbia has a ban on ALL handguns. This is essentially the law that you are a strong proponent of. Yet DC has one of, if not the highest, murder rates in the County. Why do you think that is? Simple. Criminals recognize the fact that they have NOTHING to lose committing a crime with a firearm. They know that unless they are going after an undercover cop, they have a 99.9999999999% chance that the victim is unarmed.

You gotta love those odds.

 

[LordStanley]

...that. I pointed out the position of the people creeped out by guns and that it is an impossibility.

Greatest thing Ive ever heard and this was from a family member of mine....

"I hate guns... I think all guns should be destroyed. I have never needed a gun to protect myself. And If I can live with out a firearm so can everyone else. But Im glad that you and your uncle are IDPA members and If I ever needed someone to protect me, you two are the only ones I would trust with handguns."

I still shake my head on that one.

My take on it is that people dont like guns until they are in a position where they wish they had one.

Which in my book makes them hypocrites

 

[Novus Collectus]

..limits. I do not think you should be able to keep and bear atomic weapons or B2's or an armored tank division. I do think carrying a gun around in public is both a right and appropriate for law abiding citizens who choose to do so.
I think there should be numerous guns in a school. As we all too well know, that's where our most vulnerable are.

There. I gave ground. A lot.

Israel at the time had some strict gun laws, left over from the days of British colonialism, when the British rulers tried to prevent the Jews from owning guns.

After vigorous debate, the government began allowing army reservists to keep their weapons with them. Handgun carry permits were given to any Israeli with a clean record who lived in the most dangerous areas: Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.

All over Israel, guns became pervasive in the schools:.....


.......This is not to say that Palestinian terrorists never target schools. In late May 2002, an Israeli teacher shot a suicide terrorist before he could harm anyone.

[In a seperate incident] On May 31, 2002, as reported by Israel National News, a terrorist threw a grenade and began shooting at a kindergarten in Shavei Shomron. Then, instead of closing in on the children, he abruptly fled the kindergarten and began shooting up the nearby neighborhood. Apparently he realized that the kindergarten was sure to have armed adults, and that he could not stay at the school long enough to make sure he actually murdered someone.

Unfortunately for the terrorist, “David Elbaz, owner of the local mini-market, gave chase and killed him with gunshots. In addition to several grenades and the weapon the terrorist carried on him, security sweeps revealed several explosive devices that he had intended to detonate during the thwarted attack.”

Dave Kopel on Guns, Terrorism & Teachers on National Review Online

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

...not withstanding, it's best to clarify for the beginner shooters out there that the goal isn't to shoot the bad guy, the goal is to stop the bad guy. Shooting them once might just make them mad.

But what about "one shot, one kill"? Huh larry?

 

[Novus Collectus]

But what about "one shot, one kill"? Huh larry?

When you go hunting you are shooting to take a life. When you are defending yourself or others you are shooting to save a life.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

When you go hunting you are shooting to take a life. When you are defending yourself or others you are shooting to save a life.

heh, i was joking. it was supposed to be a play on him metioning hollywood or whatever (movies).

if someone is defending themselves, i'd expect them to shoot until the danger was subsidized. look at how many shots it took to take down (i believe it was) babyface. the gangster. Granted, those guns were not as effective as the ones we have today, but i also wouldn't expect every person to have the most advanced gun lol

my point. if you can shoot and NOT kill the criminal, fine, but if it is necessary to get them to stop, that is fine too

 

[Larry Gude]

If...

But what about "one shot, one kill"? Huh larry?

...I got a Winny 700 and if he'll hold still for just a sec, that'll do!

 

[Larry Gude]

You're not a gun...

if someone is defending themselves, i'd expect them to shoot until the danger was subsidized. look at how many shots it took to take down (i believe it was) babyface. the gangster. Granted, those guns were not as effective as the ones we have today, but i also wouldn't expect every person to have the most advanced gun lol

...person, are you?

The 1911 style pistol, introduced in 1911, is still one of the best choices for a handgun to this day.

As far as killing, I wouldn't want to kill anyone, just get them to stop attacking me or mine or my classroom. He could die from a single shot in the leg yet still be able to hurt you. He could live through 7 in the chest and not have gotten close enough to touch you. The point, the goal, is to get him to stop.

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

...person, are you?

The 1911 style pistol, introduced in 1911, is still one of the best choices for a handgun to this day.

As far as killing, I wouldn't want to kill anyone, just get them to stop attacking me or mine or my classroom. He could die from a single shot in the leg yet still be able to hurt you. He could live through 7 in the chest and not have gotten close enough to touch you. The point, the goal, is to get him to stop.

i'm definitely "for" guns, but i guess i don't know about the history on some of them?

i'm not necessarily saying that the guns were bad either, but they couldn't have had as effective bullets as we have today....could they?

i guess thats not necessarily true either. :shrug: enlighten me Larry, i'm curious now lol.

 

[LordStanley]

I'll even add to my lsat post.


My wife never liked guns, and hated the fact that I was an owner. Before we moved in together, she was told upfront that I had them.

So just knowing they were in the house, always freaked her out....

I go shoot some IDPA at Sanners, come home, sit down at the coffee table and start cleaning.... She would avoid the room, and give me a hard time.

Well one night we got some serious crank calls at the house, from someone we didnt know and my wife answered the phone the first couple times. Then the person on the other end started threatening us and our home.

By that time I said bring it on, if you know where I live like you say you do, come over, I'll be in the front lawn.

So of course the calls stop, but ya cant sleep after that and still feel uneasy.

That was the first time I ever heard my wife say, "go get your gun!"

You mean the one with the Trijicon nite sites

After that, she was cool with having firearms around the house.

Even more so since I took her shooting for the first time, ever!!! And Damn if she didnt put every one of her shots dead on.

 

[Novus Collectus]

...person, are you?

The 1911 style pistol, introduced in 1911, is still one of the best choices for a handgun to this day.
...

I know what he meant. The police issue guns of the day were weak and usually just .38 specials. Not many carried a 1911 or had the brand new .357 magnums.

 

[LordStanley]

i'm definitely "for" guns, but i guess i don't know about the history on some of them?

i'm not necessarily saying that the guns were bad either, but they couldn't have had as effective bullets as we have today....could they?

i guess thats not necessarily true either. :shrug: enlighten me Larry, i'm curious now lol.

A bullet is a bullet... Not much has changed over the years. Hollow points date back to the 1800's

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

A bullet is a bullet... Not much has changed over the years. Hollow points date back to the 1800's

yeah, thats what i'd figured. wasn't sure what sort of improvements they've made though. like, caliber, amount of gunpowder maybe, weight, ect.

 

[LordStanley]

yeah, thats what i'd figured. wasn't sure what sort of improvements they've made though. like, caliber, amount of gunpowder maybe, weight, ect.

Standard FMJ's are still the same. Lead core, copper jacket.

Now hollow points have change, but they are still based of the original designs

 

[PsyOps]

Good twist!

You mean spin.

 

[PsyOps]

Are we Finnish yet...... :shrug:

 

[theArtistFormerlyKnownAs]

Are we Finnish yet...... :shrug:

ahahahaha, ha.

 

[Novus Collectus]

yeah, thats what i'd figured. wasn't sure what sort of improvements they've made though. like, caliber, amount of gunpowder maybe, weight, ect.

If you want to get into a heated debate between gun owners akin to a Ford owner arguing with a GM owner over which is better, then mention that the .45 is better than the 9mm for self defense or the reverse.

Caliber is a much disputed point about how much difference it makes. Some argue that penetration is more imoportant than wider wound channels. But the truth is that once you get to a certain point, it becomes a trade off of one benefit over another and each powerful modern self defense round has its advantages and disadvantages.
I think what you are looking for is not the designs of the bullets or the ammo even, but rather the guns themselves. Since about the 70s smaller and lighter handguns can handle more powerful ammunition be it in larger calibers or faster moving bullets (or both) because of the materials used to make them and also the designs are improved. THis allows a much more powerful round to be fired without havig to lug around a real heavy gun all day.
But this change is not for everyone because a more powerful round in a much lighter gun means more felt recoil that many people cannot handle well.

 

[Larry Gude]

Well...

i'm definitely "for" guns, but i guess i don't know about the history on some of them?

i'm not necessarily saying that the guns were bad either, but they couldn't have had as effective bullets as we have today....could they?

i guess thats not necessarily true either. :shrug: enlighten me Larry, i'm curious now lol.

...define effective.

A .45 acp, FMJ from 1911 will do the same damage as the same round today. And I use that same round as they did in 1911. Same size, weight, powder charge and muzzle velocity, or how fast it comes out.

There are the infamous 'cop' killers, numerous varieties of hollow points, that are modern and designed to make bigger wounds or to pierce body armor, but we're talking the practical difference between, say, 2 gigs of ram vs. 1 on a computer, not a model T vs. a Lexus.

I think that maybe some of the most innovative rounds of today are the ones that are designed to do LESS damage, like not go through more than one wall in a home.

You can start a huge argument among gun nuts by talking about things like penetration and expansion that, technically, do make a difference but not to a huge degree as some of the rounds won't even work correctly in all guns.
Caliber size is another area where you can get us gunners going around in circles like kittens after yarn. Mix the two arguments and you'll be entertained for hours.

Point being 1911 to today is not a relevant difference in terms of killing people. 1911 to 1860 was a huge difference.

In fact, if someone walks into my classroom with a 1911 pistol or a Thompson sub machine gun or a 100 year old .38 or .45 caliber revolver, I'm in trouble.
If they walk in with a modern era HK P7 pistol or an AR style weapon I have a chance the thing might not even go off because they may don't know how to operate it or have maintained it properly.

 

[Larry Gude]

See?

If you want to get into a heated debate between gun owners akin to a Ford owner arguing with a GM owner over which is better, then mention that the .45 is better than the 9mm for self defense or the reverse. .

...