California synagogue shooting

[PhotonGuy]

This thread is to discuss the incident. Let's not go down general gun control issues.

We have plenty of discussion of such elsewhere. I don't want to close it, so don't go off topic.

Thanks.

Good point. When I start a topic about a recent shooting it tends to get closed. So anyway, as to this particular incident, synagogues seem to be under attack. Last year there was a synagogue shooting too. That being the case, Im thinking that synagogues should have armed security, that would stop such shootings in the first place.

And we need more people like the border patrol agent who had a handgun and engaged the shooter, and the unarmed person who, even though he was unarmed, charged the shooter.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The purpose of guns is not to kill. The primary purpose of guns is to protect.

I 'm afraid that I have to disagree with you. And I think we on the pro-gun side will lose all (or almost all) credibility if we try to advance this as a position.

Look at the history of the firearm and you'll see that it was invented (by the Chinese) as a weapon for waging war. Over the history of firearms, most advances in firearms design and technology have been driven by the use of firearms for war and for killing (be it people or animals). The notion of owning firearms for a purpose or purposes other than killing (people or animals) is comparatively very recent. Even today, since hunting involves killing (animals), I would have to question whether more people, either in the U.S. or worldwide) have guns for some kind of self defense that doesn't include killing, or for a primary purpose that involves killing.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I 'm afraid that I have to disagree with you. And I think we on the pro-gun side will lose all (or almost all) credibility if we try to advance this as a position.

Look at the history of the firearm and you'll see that it was invented (by the Chinese) as a weapon for waging war. Over the history of firearms, most advances in firearms design and technology have been driven by the use of firearms for war and for killing (be it people or animals). The notion of owning firearms for a purpose or purposes other than killing (people or animals) is comparatively very recent. Even today, since hunting involves killing (animals), I would have to question whether more people, either in the U.S. or worldwide) have guns for some kind of self defense that doesn't include killing, or for a primary purpose that involves killing.

Sure, the gun and the power that comes with it was designed to kill, and to this day guns are designed for that purpose, to kill bad people or to kill animals such as when you go hunting. However, using a gun to hurt/kill innocent people is a corruption of that power. The shooter at the synagogue was using a gun for the wrong reason and the wrong purpose. What he did is a corruption of the power that comes with having a gun.

 

[manta49]

The purpose of guns is not to kill. The primary purpose of guns is to protect. The military uses them to protect our country and its interests, law enforcement use them to protect our communities and businesses, and citizens use them to protect our homes and families. Killing is often an outcome of this protection, but not the purpose of the firearm. Killing outside the purpose of protection is a misuse of the firearm.

Firearms were and are designed to kill, no point denying that. That's not a argument for gun control just a fact.

As for Europe and UK as said terrorists have used other methods to kill people, knifes trucks etc. That's because firearms are harder to obtain, knifes etc are not their first choice they are used when they can't get their first choice firearms.
Who would pick a knife over a automatic rifle if they wanted to cause mass casualties. ?

 

[44 AMP]

The purpose of guns is not to kill. The primary purpose of guns is to protect.

At the risk of further thread drift, I just have to comment on this.

It's incorrect. It's a matter of the proper use of language, which very few people do, and some flatly refuse to.

The purpose of a gun, is the same as a bow, or an atlatl, or a slingshot, etc. It is to launch a projectile in order to strike a target. What that target is, and what the shooter wants the strike to do, are decided by the shooter.

"kill" or "defend" or put holes in a piece of paper, tis not the gun that decides that, it is the PERSON shooting.

Who would pick a knife over a automatic rifle if they wanted to cause mass casualties. ?

The guys who hijacked those airplanes and flew them into building on 9/11/01 did... knives were used to obtain control of the airplanes, so they could use the aircraft as weapons..

Back to the topic, HAS it been determined that the killer bought his gun legally in CA?

Went through their background check, waiting period, and what ever else they have? and was approved? Not that it matters if he did, only that if so, its one thing to remove from discussion.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Firearms were and are designed to kill, no point denying that. That's not a argument for gun control just a fact.

I have seen the designs for several firearms. On NONE of them is the "kill" parameter. Firearms today are designed to launch a projectile down range in a controlled manner. Whether that is applied to "killing" humans or animals, target shooting, etc. are applications, not design parameters.

 

[manta49]

Who would pick a knife over a automatic rifle if they wanted to cause mass casualties. ?
The guys who hijacked those airplanes and flew them into building on 9/11/01 did... knives were used to obtain control of the airplanes, so they could use the aircraft as weapons..

The plan of that attack was to crash a aircraft into the twin towers destroy the buildings an kill as many as possible, a knife in that situation would be more effective and easy to get trough security that a firearm. As for the attack on the church nothing new criminal / terrorist with a gun trying to kill people very sad for the victims, and their families something they were doing here over thirty years ago.

The Darkley killings (or Darkley massacre) was a gun attack carried out on the 28th of November 1983 at Mountain Lodge Pentecostal Church while a church service of over 60 people was in service, it was just outside the village of Darkley in County Armagh. Three members of the church were shot dead as they stood outside the entrance of the building; they were all Protestant civilians.

 

[Pahoo]

To provide and protect

The purpose of a gun, is the same as a bow, or an atlatl, or a slingshot, etc. It is to launch a projectile in order to strike a target. What that target is, and what the shooter wants the strike to do, are decided by the shooter.

Exactly and one of my interests is primative weapons. Yes, they have evoved and the primary purpose is to "Provide and Protect" That includes the taking of a life. The Chinese have been mentioned and Gun-Powder did not start out as a propellant, it started out as an Aphrodisiac. They liked the surprising results and progressed basically into incendiary devices, then propellant for cannons. …

They all started out as tools/force multipliers not to kill other humans but to provide for food as there were no local Walmarts or LEO's. Eventually they were used for protection. ..

If firearms were invented primarily to kill humans, then so were hammers, axes, knives, rocks and all other primitive force-multipliers. ….

Be Safe !!!

 

[Aguila Blanca]

They all started out as tools/force multipliers not to kill other humans but to provide for food as there were no local Walmarts or LEO's.

I'm afraid I am contributing to thread drift here, but I really don't think I can let this go without refuting it. The firearm was invented as a weapon of war, by the Chinese around the 10th century A.D. Calling it a tool or a "force multiplier" is just employing a euphemism. They were invented as weapons of war, and at that time in history military leaders weren't bound by any Geneva conventions on "humane" warfare. Their ideal was to kill as many of the enemy as possible.

The fact that in the last century more people use firearms for hunting or for sport does not change the facts regarding the origins of the firearm. To argue otherwise just makes us look either ignorant, or (worse) like liars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_firearm

In China, the earliest firearm was the fire lance, a black-powder–filled tube attached to the end of a spear and used as a flamethrower (not to be confused with the Byzantine flamethrower); shrapnel was sometimes placed in the barrel so that it would fly out together with the flames. The earliest known depiction of a gunpowder weapon is the illustration of a fire-lance on a mid-10th century silk banner from Dunhuang. The De'an Shoucheng Lu, an account of the siege of De'an in 1132 during the Jin–Song Wars, records that Song forces used fire-lances against the Jurchen.

The proportion of saltpeter in the propellant was increased to maximize its explosive power. To better withstand that explosive power, the paper and bamboo of which fire-lance barrels were originally made came to be replaced with metal. And to take full advantage of that power, the shrapnel came to be replaced by projectiles whose size and shape filled the barrel more closely. With this, the three basic features of the gun emerged: a barrel made of metal, high-nitrate gunpowder, and a projectile which totally occludes the muzzle so that the powder charge exerts its full potential in propellant effect.

I respectfully suggest that if people are interested in having a discussion on whether guns were or were not "designed for killing," someone start a separate thread for that topic. This thread is supposed to be about the synagogue shooting, so let's return to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[PhotonGuy]

I respectfully suggest that if people are interested in having a discussion on whether guns were or were not "designed for killing," someone start a separate thread for that topic. This thread is supposed to be about the synagogue shooting, so let's return to our regularly scheduled programming

I agree. I will start another thread to debate over whether or not guns were and are designed for killing. Now back to the synagogue shooting.

My condolences to the friends and family of the woman who was killed in the shooting. Hats off to those that challenged the shooter. As for the shooter, CA I believe does have the death penalty, its what the shooter deserves, either that or a life sentence without parole.