jason_iowa
New member
Very true. I just like to jab my glock loving friends.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Anti-Gun Protest at GLOCK
- Thread starter BarryLee
- Start date
The wandering was my bad. My apologies to the OP.
OFF TOPIC
One last word if I may, and if you think it's unmannerly to reply here feel free to PM me, as I would truly appreciate your opinion on this: As far as the shooters in the majority of cases, I don't see how are mental health care institution could have prevented them. There would be too many false-positives. Emotionally distraught people all act in fairly predictable ways, but the don't all go out and murder people.
BACK ON TOPIC
My point, was that the anti- gun crowd has a point. And we should recognize it. What I'm about to say is crazy, but hear me out. I think that they are right in that there would be less instances of "mass murder" if there were no guns. Sure, some would find means to carry out their nefarious schemes but the vast majority would be either unable of much damage or have time for reflection. If you could magically get rid of all the guns then I truly believe that we would have less mass murder, which brings me my real point if I ever had one..
That's why the tired argument; "they'd just use a knife, club, etc., doesn't really work when applied to typical mass murder. It's weak and I hate for my side to have weak arguments. Our strong position is that of reality, guns are here to stay, you can't get rid of them. Just like the Catholic Church's attempt at banning crossbows 900 years ago, it didn't work then, and it won't work now.
Now regulating guns, that's another story.
OFF TOPIC
One last word if I may, and if you think it's unmannerly to reply here feel free to PM me, as I would truly appreciate your opinion on this: As far as the shooters in the majority of cases, I don't see how are mental health care institution could have prevented them. There would be too many false-positives. Emotionally distraught people all act in fairly predictable ways, but the don't all go out and murder people.
BACK ON TOPIC
My point, was that the anti- gun crowd has a point. And we should recognize it. What I'm about to say is crazy, but hear me out. I think that they are right in that there would be less instances of "mass murder" if there were no guns. Sure, some would find means to carry out their nefarious schemes but the vast majority would be either unable of much damage or have time for reflection. If you could magically get rid of all the guns then I truly believe that we would have less mass murder, which brings me my real point if I ever had one..
That's why the tired argument; "they'd just use a knife, club, etc., doesn't really work when applied to typical mass murder. It's weak and I hate for my side to have weak arguments. Our strong position is that of reality, guns are here to stay, you can't get rid of them. Just like the Catholic Church's attempt at banning crossbows 900 years ago, it didn't work then, and it won't work now.
Now regulating guns, that's another story.
I sort if understand what you are saying, but the reality is that with 300,000,000+ guns already in circulation and more being sold every day the “no guns” ship has kind of already sailed.
Also, realize that most gun violence in this country is not of the type which occurred in some of these high profile shootings, but is most often one on one old school criminal activity. Regardless of what impact reducing guns may have on these very limited mass shootings I feel pretty confident that the average criminal will find a “tool” to get the job done.
Also, realize that most gun violence in this country is not of the type which occurred in some of these high profile shootings, but is most often one on one old school criminal activity. Regardless of what impact reducing guns may have on these very limited mass shootings I feel pretty confident that the average criminal will find a “tool” to get the job done.
With all due respect Mr. Ettin, In 1927 it was far from hard to obtain dynamite and other high explosives.
And I never argued that mass murder could not be committed without a gun, but I think we can all agree that nearly all of them are. It's just more convenient.
Do you have any research backing your claim that most rampage killings are organized and planned? Certainly the worst and high profile ones were, but remember there's been 62 mass murders involving guns since 1982 and so far the handful I've researched did not seem planned.
Actually the suburban idea is something I thought of after reading thishttp://www.damninteresting.com/the-wrath-of-the-killdozer/.
Anyways, using the car analogy is a good way to argue against "preventative" gun laws. As for the super-soaker/gasoline/match thing... good luck with that.
And I never argued that mass murder could not be committed without a gun, but I think we can all agree that nearly all of them are. It's just more convenient.
Do you have any research backing your claim that most rampage killings are organized and planned? Certainly the worst and high profile ones were, but remember there's been 62 mass murders involving guns since 1982 and so far the handful I've researched did not seem planned.
A big car, like a surburban, in a crowded place, say a parade or festival could kill dozens. If someone wanted to attack a school just ram the fence at recess.
A super soaker filled with gasoline and a match. A ten year old could buy the stuff for that.
Actually the suburban idea is something I thought of after reading thishttp://www.damninteresting.com/the-wrath-of-the-killdozer/.
Anyways, using the car analogy is a good way to argue against "preventative" gun laws. As for the super-soaker/gasoline/match thing... good luck with that.
The pure emotion statements of people like that really get under my skin. I can't understand why anyone would devoid themselves of logical thought. Worse yet, it seems as though a good portion of our country's populace is continually growing more willing to accept everything they hear without digging further into it. Self reliance is turning into a thing of the past. I suppose ignorance truly is bliss.
okiewita40
New member
Tickling,
I used to work at a mental hospital. Trust me when I say that there is nothing predictable about how a mentally ill person reacts. I once got hit multiple times by a pt. Just for asking them to pick up a blanket.
People can and do find ways to commit mass murder. IED's, pipe bombs, ECT. Heck just throw some shrapnel in a pipe bomb and you can kill or maim a number of people.
Now I look at things through the eyes of an LEO. Guns are only the tools that these mentally ill types are currently using.
That coupled with the fact that a lot liberals just hate guns is the only reason that there is any talk at all about a gun ban of any kind. If the anti's would put as much focus towards solving the national debt, welfare or something else productive this would be a much better time than what we have now.
I used to work at a mental hospital. Trust me when I say that there is nothing predictable about how a mentally ill person reacts. I once got hit multiple times by a pt. Just for asking them to pick up a blanket.
People can and do find ways to commit mass murder. IED's, pipe bombs, ECT. Heck just throw some shrapnel in a pipe bomb and you can kill or maim a number of people.
Now I look at things through the eyes of an LEO. Guns are only the tools that these mentally ill types are currently using.
That coupled with the fact that a lot liberals just hate guns is the only reason that there is any talk at all about a gun ban of any kind. If the anti's would put as much focus towards solving the national debt, welfare or something else productive this would be a much better time than what we have now.
okiewita40,
I agree with you. Notice I said, "emotionally distraught," not "mentally ill." And I was referring to unplanned rampage shootings such as "Virginia Tech."
Also, I'm well aware that people can build IEDs and pipe bombs, but as I went over in some of my earlier posts, it's not as easy as people think. In fact, it's pretty hard.
That perfectly sums up my feelings as well.
I agree with you. Notice I said, "emotionally distraught," not "mentally ill." And I was referring to unplanned rampage shootings such as "Virginia Tech."
Also, I'm well aware that people can build IEDs and pipe bombs, but as I went over in some of my earlier posts, it's not as easy as people think. In fact, it's pretty hard.
Guns are only the tools
That perfectly sums up my feelings as well.
Originally posted by Frank Ettin
I would add to that list that the Columbine High School shooters only started shooting after their home-made propane bombs failed to explode. Had they been better bomb makers, the Columbine shooting would've likely been far worse than it was.
Originally posted by Tickling
A few glass bottles, some old rags, gasoline, and a cigarette lighter is all that's required to very easily make a very nasty weapon that could wreak just as much, if not more havoc in a crowded place than a firearm. Likewise, a pound or two of black powder, a box of nails, and some cannon fuse make for another very destructive device that's ridiculously easy to make if one were so inclined.
The fact of the matter is that where there is a will, there is a way and that applies just as much to evil as it does to good. People were killing each other, often in large numbers, long before the first firearm ever appeared and they will continue to do so for the forseeable future regardless of the availability of firearms.
Mass murders simply use whatever tool is available to them. If you take away one tool, you'll only make them turn to another. A person so determined to carry out such a heinous act that they're willing to die in the process simply cannot be appealed to, bargained with, or intimidated and more laws certainly aren't going to disuade them. The only way to stop such people is to meet them with force equal to or greater than their own.
Rampage murders have certainly been committed without a gun:
The worst school mass murder in U. S. history was committed without a gun: The The Bath School disaster -- 1927, 45 people killed (including 38 children) with dynamite, firebombs, pyrotol, a club and Winchester rifle (the rifle was used only in the killer's suicide).
In 1995, Timothy McVeigh killed 168 people and injured over 800 with a home made bomb in a truck
One of the worst mass murders in U. S. history was committed without a gun: The Happy Land fire -- 1990, arson killing 87 people (and don't forget 9/11).
And there was Priscilla Ford who in 1980 intentionally drove her car onto a crowded Reno, NV sidewalk killing 7.
If you have a look at the listing of rampage killings on Wikipedia, you'll see that a great deal of damage has been done world wide without firearms.
I would add to that list that the Columbine High School shooters only started shooting after their home-made propane bombs failed to explode. Had they been better bomb makers, the Columbine shooting would've likely been far worse than it was.
Originally posted by Tickling
Also, I'm well aware that people can build IEDs and pipe bombs, but as I went over in some of my earlier posts, it's not as easy as people think. In fact, it's pretty hard.
A few glass bottles, some old rags, gasoline, and a cigarette lighter is all that's required to very easily make a very nasty weapon that could wreak just as much, if not more havoc in a crowded place than a firearm. Likewise, a pound or two of black powder, a box of nails, and some cannon fuse make for another very destructive device that's ridiculously easy to make if one were so inclined.
The fact of the matter is that where there is a will, there is a way and that applies just as much to evil as it does to good. People were killing each other, often in large numbers, long before the first firearm ever appeared and they will continue to do so for the forseeable future regardless of the availability of firearms.
Mass murders simply use whatever tool is available to them. If you take away one tool, you'll only make them turn to another. A person so determined to carry out such a heinous act that they're willing to die in the process simply cannot be appealed to, bargained with, or intimidated and more laws certainly aren't going to disuade them. The only way to stop such people is to meet them with force equal to or greater than their own.
scrubcedar
New member
"The only way to stop such people is to meet them with a force equal to or greater than their own." And we have reached the right answer.
Contrary to popular belief, Molotov cocktails and their precursors where originally used to set fire to tanks or buildings (http://www.worldwar-two.net/weapons/molotov_cocktail/). They really don't work that well against people. Black powder makes a nice little explosion, but I'm afraid it won't send your shrapnel very far (unless you design it to, and that's tricky).
I'm glad you pointed out the failed bomb at Columbine as it appears to be the rule rather than the exception when it comes to amateur bomb-makers, thank God. Even modern military bombs have a significant failure rate, as a quick Google search will show you.
And you're right. If people want to kill or harm others they will find a way. But you have to admit guns make it a great deal easier for the common crackpot. And that's all I'm trying to say.
You won't get an argument from me there. Some historians attribute (among other factors) the invention of the crossbow with the ending of feudalism. For the first time, perhaps in the history of the world, an untrained peasant could take on a knight who had spent a fortune on his armor and trained for combat his entire life.
Guns can surely be used for evil, as can my car or brain. But they also give freedom, freedom to the weak against the powerful.
I'm glad you pointed out the failed bomb at Columbine as it appears to be the rule rather than the exception when it comes to amateur bomb-makers, thank God. Even modern military bombs have a significant failure rate, as a quick Google search will show you.
And you're right. If people want to kill or harm others they will find a way. But you have to admit guns make it a great deal easier for the common crackpot. And that's all I'm trying to say.
The only way to stop such people is to meet them with force equal to or greater than their own.
You won't get an argument from me there. Some historians attribute (among other factors) the invention of the crossbow with the ending of feudalism. For the first time, perhaps in the history of the world, an untrained peasant could take on a knight who had spent a fortune on his armor and trained for combat his entire life.
Guns can surely be used for evil, as can my car or brain. But they also give freedom, freedom to the weak against the powerful.
Contrary to popular belief, Molotov cocktails and their precursors where originally used to set fire to tanks or buildings (http://www.worldwar-two.net/weapons/molotov_cocktail/). They really don't work that well against people. Black powder makes a nice little explosion, but I'm afraid it won't send your shrapnel very far (unless you design it to, and that's tricky).
True that such devices are pretty crude and, as compared to more sophisticated explosives, not particularly effective. However, they are more than effective enough if used under the right (or perhaps wrong is the better word) circumstances. For example, lobbing Molotov cocktails at police in riot gear on an open street may not do all that much damage, but if you start throwing them inside a crowded movie theater or classroom it's likely to be another story entirely.
Also, you say that the average person wouldn't be able to make a more sophisticated explosive, but I'm not sure I really buy that. In the age of computers and the internet, the information needed to make all sorts of very nasty things including bombs is only a few keystrokes and clicks away. Heck, you can probably find instructions for making nuclear devices if you want to (though thankfully the necessary materials aren't readily available) so I don't think it would be all that hard to figure out how to make a comparatively simple fire or shrapnel bomb.
The point is that there are scores of ways to kill large numbers of people is someone is determined enough. Explosives, arson, or even noxious gases wouldn't be particularly hard things for a maniac to use if he were determined, clever, and creative enough (these three qualities seem to be common among mass murderers). While firearms may currently be such people's weapon of choice, they're certainly not the only choice and they're not necessarily the most effective.
For example, lobbing Molotov cocktails at police in riot gear on an open street may not do all that much damage, but if you start throwing them inside a crowded movie theater or classroom it's likely to be another story entirely.
Actually I think you've got that backwards, Molotov cocktails are more effective against hard objects, such as riot gear, then soft ones like people. The reason is, bottles don't usually break when they hit a person when thrown, particularly when filled or partially filled with a liquid. Try throwing some at Styrofoam. Empty bottles are another story.
Also, you say that the average person wouldn't be able to make a more sophisticated explosive, but I'm not sure I really buy that. In the age of computers and the internet, the information needed to make all sorts of very nasty things including bombs is only a few keystrokes and clicks away.
I didn't say that. I said that the average person would have hard time doing it and that it would take some time. I'm an average person and I did it. When I was 15 I blew down a tree that was 6 ft around (and I got arrested). But it was hard, it took me months, and yes I got all my information from the internet. Plus I had ready access to materials since my father was a contractor, and I'd worked for an electrician, but even then the wiring was almost impossible and I ended up cheating. In all, I'm lucky to be alive. But you don't have to take my word for, look how little it happens or how often it fails.
Instructions, even the main (tertiary) explosives are easy to get. But it's really hard to set them off how and when you want to (just Google "failed bombing attempts"). Anything's possible, that's certainly true. About the nuclear device.. you've obviously never heard of David Hahn..
Again I'm not disagreeing with you. If someone really wants to do something they will find a way. Just look at David Hahn. But many of these rampage shooters aren't that clever or creative. If the Virginia Tech shooter hadn't had a gun I doubt we would have had a mass murder. Guns are just easy, that's all I'm saying. McDonald's is easy too (and more likely then a gun to kill you), but I'm not saying we should ban them. I was merely playing devil's advocate.
Lucifyr_Sam
Inactive
"Actually I think you've got that backwards, Molotov cocktails are more effective against hard objects, such as riot gear, then soft ones like people. The reason is, bottles don't usually break when they hit a person when thrown, particularly when filled or partially filled with a liquid. Try throwing some at Styrofoam. Empty bottles are another story."
Yeah, but the people would be crowded around a door in a wall. They'd just throw them at the wall above them, floor behind them.
Yeah, but the people would be crowded around a door in a wall. They'd just throw them at the wall above them, floor behind them.
Yeah, but the people would be crowded around a door in a wall.
Would they? That would be convenient if they did.. or would it? Try throwing a water balloon at a wall and see how much water gets on the floor.. throwing a Molotov cocktail on the ground will probably just ruin some shoes..
The thing is, improvised weapons/explosives rely on a lot of ifs, and special circumstances. And they're not as inherently easy to wield/use as a firearm.
Brian Pfleuger
Moderator Emeritus
Alright guys, Molotov's and such aren't the topic.
Wow! Go away for a few days, and see what happens?
Well, no one was speaking of mass killings until your post.That's true for most of your run of the mill crimes of passion, etc.. But just to play devil's advocate here; without guns most of these mass murders wouldn't have occurred. How far do you think the Aurora shooter would have gotten with a knife?
I would beg to differ. Having received some training in improvised munitions, I can tell you that almost anyone in this country has access to explosives.A gun is much more readily available than any explosive, despite what anyone says.
Emphasis mine.I do not want to sound callous or cynical, but the blood of their children is being spilled by their children. Teach people (including the adults) to follow the law, and the blood would cease to flow in the streets. Pointing fingers at people who provide a tool for people to defend themselves from violence is not the answer. If not guns, people would use knives, baseball bats, truncheons, fists, and so on.
I apologize if I misunderstood what you were saying. I'll admit the subject evolved in a different direction than I intended.
I won't get into the"access to explosives" debate again as I've already taken this thread off-topic enough and I already answered that question in an earlier posting. If you care to read it and still disagree, feel free to PM me.
trg42wraglefragle
New member
If they ban "assault rifles" and high capacity mags to stop mass murders, then someone kills 8 people with a leaver action, are they then going to ban all guns?
Then when people use knifes are they going to ban them too?
Instead of banning everything, would it not make sense to try and stop people getting to such a mental state to do such things? Seems like a better way to look at it.
Then when people use knifes are they going to ban them too?
Instead of banning everything, would it not make sense to try and stop people getting to such a mental state to do such things? Seems like a better way to look at it.
A) HOW about these so called Reverends Actually proove their "Reverendship".
What is their actual parish and why exactly are they "tax exempt" ?
I think this should be looked into... I doubt these tv hounds would pass muster...
B) IMO IF these tv hounds want to shovel their garbage...
please limit it to their pulpits ( if they actually have one)
Why is it a 1 st ammendment issue for the anti's only when the
Pro 2A SPEAKS ?
What is their actual parish and why exactly are they "tax exempt" ?
I think this should be looked into... I doubt these tv hounds would pass muster...
B) IMO IF these tv hounds want to shovel their garbage...
please limit it to their pulpits ( if they actually have one)
Why is it a 1 st ammendment issue for the anti's only when the
Pro 2A SPEAKS ?