Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At this point, a mass shooting in our country occurs at an approximate rate of every 60 hours.
And all conducted with semi-auto firearms? How many are killed in these shootings? What definition of mass shooting are you using?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeliner
Do you really think that we should still be talking in defense of the legal possession of semi-automatic firearms?
Yes
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeliner
People voluntarily go to swimmimg pools to enjoy the sport of swimming. They trust that their previously acquired skills will suffice for their safe exploration of a temporary aquatic endeavor. Of course, that's a decision that each individual within a group has to independently make for themselves.
It is about safety, does not matter if the person voluntarily engaged in it or not, there are plenty of accidental drownings from children who fall into swimming pools
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeliner
They should all have reasonable assurance that they will survive the experience without being mowed down by some enraged person with a semi-automatic firearm who cares not about collateral damage inflicted upon others.
I feel very much safe that I will not be mowed down with a semi auto firearm, matter of fact, statistics show that is one of the least worries I have.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeliner
The prospect of a civil war, or any other civil insurrection waged in this country (or any other technologically advanced country) is quite a ludicrous idea. Governmental intelligence would intercept it and our military would disintegrate it within a very short period of time.
The USSR had one of the most elaborate domestic monitoring of any country in the world, they still fell. Tsarist Russia had the most elaborate internal monitoring in the world at that time, they still fell into a civil war.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zeliner
Semi-automatic and automatic firearms are designed for only one purpose_____WAR!
And all conducted with semi-auto firearms? How many are killed in these shootings? What definition of mass shooting are you using?
Yes
It is about safety, does not matter if the person voluntarily engaged in it or not, there are plenty of accidental drownings from children who fall into swimming pools
I feel very much safe that I will not be mowed down with a semi auto firearm, matter of fact, statistics show that is one of the least worries I have.
The USSR had one of the most elaborate domestic monitoring of any country in the world, they still fell. Tsarist Russia had the most elaborate internal monitoring in the world at that time, they still fell into a civil war.
Actually, yes, my understanding is that they all are or have been on these meds.
I will look for the link and post it.
Here is one:
"There have been 65 high profile acts of senseless violence, including mass school shootings, mass stabbings, and even the intentional crashing of a commercial airplane, committed by individuals taking or withdrawing from psychiatric drugs, resulting in 357 dead and 336 wounded."
"The fact is psychiatric drugs are documented by 27 international drug regulatory agency warnings and 16 published medical studies to cause side effects including mania, hostility, violence and even homicidal ideation. And while not everyone taking the drug will experience these particular side effects, what the warnings prove is that a percentage of the population will."
You are not going to like this source, but please read...
It documents all the TEENAGERS who have been prescribed Zoloft or Paxil or Prozac or similar who have then gone on to kill others or themselves. The teenage brain is not like the adult brain, yet teens are being prescribed these mind altering drugs. And no studies have been done on how they impact a still developing brain.
You may dismiss me because you think I'm conservative or Christian or a Trump supporter.
But more than all of that, I am the mother of a teenage boy. I had to fight back against a system that wanted to drug him. I had to find ways to help him and I did. This issue is very close to my heart.
Thank you for posting this, calgirlinnc.
Also, I'm glad you found ways to help your son. Good for you for fighting for your son.
I'm not the one being asked this question, but it would seem to me that for someone who wants to kill lots of people, guns are more "efficient" at producing greater damage, and there's also a drama factor and a narcissistic appeal to being the one holding a gun and slaughtering others, whereas bombs are more impersonal (though undeniably dramatic). Knives are TOO personal, and they're messy - the wielder has to get up close and actually physically engage the victim. Guns fall in between the distant bomb and the intimate knife, and the body count is greater...they're easier, and they make the shooter look powerful in his own mind.
I hate where my imagination takes me at times like this - trying to put myself into the mind-frame of someone so utterly insane and violent that they would engage in such repulsive, alien and evil actions.
Jump in for a moment though I am still tens of pages behind.
This reminds me of two things.
One was where a comrade said I worried him. That I seemed to be the kind to jump out of the bushes with a gun and ambush him. To which I said,
"Heck, you don't have to worry about that! If we came to blows, I'd take you out at distance with a sniper rifle." His response? "Coward!".
The second item was in psychology class where we were given the scenario that we want to kill someone. Do we shoot them from a distance, knock them over the head from behind, or strangle them?
The answer is that we would probably do 1 or 2 but not the third since most people could not be looking into the eyes of someone they are killing.
So what's "the answer"? It depends for there are many, many variables. For example, the airway killer is particularly sinister for he really gets to decide when his victim dies.
When it comes to shooting, I'm trained to engage at greater and not lesser distance since a person can cover many yards in a very short time.
As far as rifles go, well that is how I started my shooting. Is there something psychological about preferring, if it came down to it mind you, rifles at a distance, I suppose so. For me, it is reinforcement from those around me (Wow, where did you learn to shoot like that!) to what I pick up in the movies such as "The sniper was a woman....some of the best KGB shots are women."....but maybe I'm just conditioned to hear what I like.
Is it a thing with men, though, to believe they have to engage at point blank range? I don't know.
As far as explosives go, that's hard to say. I'm certainly studied in them from various aspects but they hold no particular appeal to me. Interestingly enough, however, an ex UDT type I have worked for told us a story of a Viet Nam bridge job where people were flying through the air and the leader expressed the need for a cigarette about that.
With what few details I know about Florida, it does sound like he used a common tactic of getting people to panic to head down into the killing zone. In his case, he used smoke bombs and gunfire. I've heard of that tactic use as a small bomb to get people to evacuate and then setting off the larger, more killing, bomb along their escape route.
Of course, my pride is hand to hand.............but one shouldn't blunder like Rommel. That is, in family history, I was told that Rommel in WWI found himself in a situation where he was out of ammo but thought being a good bayonet man, he could charge and found himself several weeks in the hospital. I don't know if the story is true or not but h2h is not the best option if there is significant distance.
I note that the Marjory Douglas High School was able to pony up $200,000 for a new sports stadium in 2007.
$200,000 would have bought more than 1,500 security cameras.
From what I read, a security guard, the coach who was killed, was notified that there was a person with a gun from a student who was allowed to escape. I am guessing this was before the fire alarm was pulled. I know how the code red works in the schools. If the alarm is pulled, nobody leaves the rooms in a code red.
So, if the security guard was notified of the gun sighting, and the gunman was able to get kids out through the fire alarm, no code red was relayed to the office. Of course, this theory depends on when the fire alarm was pulled.
No it wasn't. We were needing to protect ourselves from a Tyrannical government, remember. And to avoid it happening again, the 2A was put in for us to protect ourselves , defend ourselves, from a tyrannical government and others seeing fit to harm us.
And Rifles, Pennsylvania Jagers, used during Revolutionary were accurate to 300yds.. Muskets, not so much past 50 yds.
No. The second amendment was put in because we had no standing army at the time and that`s made clear with the wording about a well regulated militia. The founders believed that we should vote out politicians with whom we disagree, not murder them. The National Rampage Association is pulling your chain on that one.
Consider closing all military installations on foreign soil, bringing all of our troops home, & station trained folks in our schools. & work on practica, pragmatic & sorely needed infrastructure projects here in US.
You can’t deploy military on American soil. You know that right?
No need to get personal or chauvinistic on this point. Humans are the most savage beasts on the planet. Not all aggression is directed to the animals. It got us to this point in the food cycle and I doubt we will ever change as a species. We could not dominate any of the other carnivores without the weapons we invented. "I don't like this either"
Yes, but societies are different from each other. You can't deny that. American society is absolutely different than say German or Italian society.
You can’t deploy military on American soil. You know that right?
The only people that can ever stop these senseless acts of violence are the victims. They are the ones in the right place at the right time to stop the slaughter. If we trained our kids to respond when threatened maybe there would not be 17 dead; maybe only two dead? Maybe and attacker like this monster would think twice before attempting to attack capable teenagers.
If any shooter has thirty books or shoes being thrown at him; he does not have a chance to respond. If the whole class charges; the shooter cannot kill all. The idea is to make the 'victims' into a fighting machine that can repulse any of these single shooters. Flying objects do not let a shooter aim or even hold the gun. If a class of 30 teenagers would all tackle the shooter; that would be hitting him with the force of two tons.
We could take classes out to our school yards and practice throwing books, shoes, chairs - let our kids know they do not have to act like victims. Bring in experts to work with them. Empower them so they can not only save their own lives; but also the lives of their classmates. Make the monsters think twice before they would attack an empowered school!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
