3. Fact: British citizens are now more likely to become a victim of crime than are people in the United States:
So if I have a 99/100 chance of being a victim of crime in Britain and a 98/100 chance of being a victim of crime in the US...What exactly do I have to be happy about? My numbers are meant to prove a point as I'm well aware crime rates aren't that absurd. I wouldn't want to live anywhere near either of these countries if the numbers were such. Superlatives are a failure for proving a point.
5. Fact: Many nations with stricter gun control laws have violence rates that are equal to, or greater than, that of the United States. Consider the following rates:
There aren't many countries in the world like the United States either. Even still, why would I care if there are many nations with higher crime than the United States. If crime is " very very high" in ABC and only "very high" in the US that isn't exactly something to be proud of. In fact, it proves absolutely nothing towards Busting the "Gun Control Equals Less Crime" Myth!
Superlative statistics are absolutely useless to prove anything. There's a few points of "evidence" in the study that are actually meaningful, but the superlative statistics discard any credibility this "research" has in my opinion. You're welcome to disagree, but that's my opinion on the matter.
Perhaps next time you can keep your snide little fingers away from the keyboard and participate like an adult. If you have a disagreement voice it but don't waste my time with your stupidity.
China has a strictly no guns allowed policy, even within the police force (of which have non-lethal guns). Only the armed police and military. Gun death is literally 0.
It works, you've just never tried it.
Facts are facts herp.
Lol. Of course they do... Do you honestly believe the most populous country on Earth has zero gun deaths and no gun related crime just because a totalitarian government that controls the media says so?
On January 19 2011 05:10 DwD wrote: ??? That can't be right. How can the gun shoot 3 people on accident while being dropped? Did he carry a fucking m16 in his backpack...
M16s fire 556 rounds which aren't designed for penetration.
556 rounds are very small projectiles, which combined with the incredible muzzle velocity of an M16 causes them to penetrate very well for a rifle round
I would have agreed with you, until you said "for a rifle round"
They penetrate terribly as a rifle round. They don't penetrate badly, but due to design are much worse at penetration then other [rifle] rounds are. The center of gravity is too far back which induces tumbling after the round hits something and makes it more prone to deflection when faced with angles.
On January 19 2011 06:20 Irave wrote: It is fairly easy to speculate that the accidental discharge seems like a stretch, it is entirely possible. Many guns on the market now have trigger pulls as low as three pounds. The bag with the gun hits the floor, anything even grazes the trigger its going off.
However the focus of this even should be thoughts of everyone affected recovering. So far as it sounds, its turning out that way.
Uh, many guns on the market don't have 3lb trigger pulls. I don't know of any guns that come stock with a 3.0lb trigger pull, let alone many.
Glocks are the most popular handgun purchased, and they have a 5.5lb trigger pull. 1911's generally come with a 4.5lb trigger, but another 1-1.5lb are required to disengage the grip safety. Sig 226/9 have a DA/SA trigger, and have a 10lb trigger DA with a 4.4lb SA. Other DA/SA guns such as USP's and M9(2)'s have similar weights.
On January 19 2011 05:31 MidKnight wrote: How often do school shootings stuff happen in the other parts of the world btw? There are a lot of fucked up people all over the world, sure, but a random student WILL NOT be able to get a firearm in most other countries, so it usually just remains a fantasy..
I'm sorry, but 2nd amendment is a joke.It's a law enforced 200+ years ago and now people look at it as some sort of "tradition" which "made America oh so great".It's plain and simple brainwashing. Apply common sense moar..
Other than that, let's hope there will be no casualties out of this thing..
We don't have shootings, but kids still manage to kill each other with knives, so....
But no one person is able to kill 33 or however many died at VT with a knife.
And then you have boxcutters crashing planes into buildings.
Terrorism and mental illnesses aside, do you really believe that a gun is required to kill a lot of people? Somebody could just drive a SUV through times square on new years, it isn't hard to make homemade bombs etc.
If you want guns controlled so you can feel safe(r), I would pose the question as to weather feeling safe, or being safe is more important to you.
On January 19 2011 05:23 LazyMacro wrote: It's when someone has the intent to commit a malicious act. At that point it doesn't matter if it's a gun, a knife, a cup of hot coffee, etc.
Sorry i have to quote this. One of the smartest things i have read so far. But why would you stop here? How about legalizing nukes, eh? I mean at some point, it just doesn't matter. Don't get me wrong I am not trying to make fun of you. I completely agree, as long as there are malicious souls, why bother to restrict the amount of carnage they can cause. I mean at the end, its all the will of god, right?
Case Law interprets the 2A to give people the right to bear any arms up to what a common soldier might have access to. So no, not nukes. However, people with enough money have bought tanks and mortars etc.
On January 19 2011 09:43 BlackJack wrote:
"The United States has experienced far fewer TOTAL MURDERS than Europe does over the last 70 years. In trying to claim that gun-free Europe is more peaceful than America, gun control advocates routinely ignore the overwhelming number of murders that have been committed in Europe. "
Lol best argument against gun control ever. "Omg 70 years ago there was world war 2 and a lot of people were murdered so that is why we shouldn't have gun control." Too funny..
A war does not get counted into murder statistics. It isn't a murder if soldiers on the battlefield are fighting each other.
What people miss is that yes, when guns are banned gun crimes and gun violence goes down. However, ALL other forms of crime rise with very, very few exceptions.
// I'll note that a lot (read all) of those anti 'studies' that were found via wiki have been throughly disproven in court. They hold little if any weight in any of the recent related caselaw. Even so, it's hard to find a pressing interest to restrict rights when the anti studies find no discernible difference between RTC and no-issue states.
Perhaps next time you can keep your snide little fingers away from the keyboard and participate like an adult. If you have a disagreement voice it but don't waste my time with your stupidity.
China has a strictly no guns allowed policy, even within the police force (of which have non-lethal guns). Only the armed police and military. Gun death is literally 0.
It works, you've just never tried it.
Facts are facts herp.
Mexico has more gun crime than we do, yet they also have a strict no guns allowed policy.
This is pretty sad. What really is sad is how someone so young and immature can have access to and use guns so easily. Regardless of laws a gun in the hands of an irresponsible person is a terrible thing. I hope the kids who got hurt don't suffer to serious of an injury and get better quickly. I alos hope this doesn't mess up their whole lives.
Some guns don't have traditional safeties. Revolvers and Glocks come to mind. Some people AD Glocks when holstering if they are not careful because some clothing will get stuck in the trigger guard and pull the trigger.
The story you link is a grown man attacking a bus full of middle and high school students. 13 kids injured, no fatalities. Still a horrible tragedy acted out by a crazy person, but not nearly as bad as what could have happened if say, he shot them instead.
My point stands. VT or Columbine could not have happened if the perpetrator didn't have firearms.
How do you stop a guy with a gun? Wait for him to jam, or reload or get your own. How do you stop a guy with a knife? "I'd run away!" That doesn't happen in VT since he locked the doors with iron chain and a padlock.
Guns are not magic. It is far easier to hurt somebody seriously with a knife then a gun in contact distance given the same amount of familiarity with each. Within arms reach, you should definitely wish to be faced with a gun instead of a knife.
Firearms are not the cause of mass killings; they would happen regardless. Firearms do not necessarily make these incidents more deadly; they tend to have more wounded and less dead.
Man every time something involving a gun happens we end up with a huge argument about gun control. Guns exist and even if they were banned people who want them could get them, banning them would only hurt the people who use them legally for defense and sport.
To say things like columbine would not have happened if we had gun control is ludicrous, the kids went out of their way to make homemade bombs, im sure they would have found guns if they were legal or not.
On January 19 2011 05:10 Sufficiency wrote: US needs tougher gun law. Seriously.
Then again, this is a historical problem which is unlikely to get changed any time soon.
Do you seriously think the problem lies in taking away the rights of people to carry arms? If I wanted to kill someone, I don't need a gun.
And wouldn't conventional wisdom should tell us that more people carrying guns (or other forms of self-defense) means less crazy people would attempt to shoot other people. This has been a highly debated topic for years, and I'm not attempting to convince you or anyone else of anything. All I know is that it's ridiculous, that I, as a law abiding citizen have to jump through all kinds of hoops just to get a gun for fun, self-defense, what-other-purpose-I-want, whereas criminals who want weapons will get it in any other way they want regardless of what the law says.
Obviously none of us lived in the "old" days, but if I'm not mistaken the United States was founded by a group of people who probably carried weapons daily as a way of life, as natural as we would carry a wallet, our set of keys, etc. IMO, this shouldn't even be an issue, but what do I know.
On January 19 2011 16:45 Fiercegore wrote: Using something like a school shooting is a cheap way to promote a political position.
Perhaps next time you can keep your snide little fingers away from the keyboard and participate like an adult. If you have a disagreement voice it but don't waste my time with your stupidity.
China has a strictly no guns allowed policy, even within the police force (of which have non-lethal guns). Only the armed police and military. Gun death is literally 0.
It works, you've just never tried it.
Facts are facts herp.
Mexico has more gun crime than we do, yet they also have a strict no guns allowed policy.
Facts, herp, etc.
And saying gun death is literally 0 in China is irrelevant. It doesn't mean killing is literally 0. Again, you don't have to use a gun to kill someone. And to compare country vs country statistics is like comparing apples and oranges. There's a lot of other factors, such as severity of punishment for types of crimes, whether crimes are actually reported, etc.
On January 19 2011 06:20 Irave wrote: It is fairly easy to speculate that the accidental discharge seems like a stretch, it is entirely possible. Many guns on the market now have trigger pulls as low as three pounds. The bag with the gun hits the floor, anything even grazes the trigger its going off.
However the focus of this even should be thoughts of everyone affected recovering. So far as it sounds, its turning out that way.
Uh, many guns on the market don't have 3lb trigger pulls. I don't know of any guns that come stock with a 3.0lb trigger pull, let alone many.
Glocks are the most popular handgun purchased, and they have a 5.5lb trigger pull. 1911's generally come with a 4.5lb trigger, but another 1-1.5lb are required to disengage the grip safety. Sig 226/9 have a DA/SA trigger, and have a 10lb trigger DA with a 4.4lb SA. Other DA/SA guns such as USP's and M9(2)'s have similar weights.
American Rifleman actually somewhat covered this topic recently. The majority of the topic talked about MSNBC's attack on Remington. Apparently, there's a class action lawsuit against Remington due to it's 700 rifle accidentally discharging in certain circumstances (which MSNBC documented). What MSNBC refused to acknowledge that the 700 is a police, swat, and military standard sniper rifle. Obviously if it was dysfunctional, would the government use it? Instead, as American Rifleman explains, it's due to tampering by the owners themselves that cause the accidental discharge. I have one, and I've dropped it by accident a couple of times... loaded... and it never went off. I was obviously scared when I first read about this (since I read about the class action lawsuit before American Rifleman covered the issue). My fears have since abated, but only slightly, as I purchased the rifle second-hand, and there is a chance the previous owner tampered with it.
On January 19 2011 06:22 RoosterSamurai wrote: How would that help anything? If people can get illegal drugs, what makes you think they can't get illegal guns?
Moreover, people can get illegal guns. What makes you think they can't get illegal guns? I'd be willing to bet that high schooler didn't own that gun legally.
On January 19 2011 05:31 MidKnight wrote: How often do school shootings stuff happen in the other parts of the world btw? There are a lot of fucked up people all over the world, sure, but a random student WILL NOT be able to get a firearm in most other countries, so it usually just remains a fantasy..
I find it comical that you made this post considering your displayed country, since regardless of gun law differences (I wouldn't know what the gun laws are in your country) Lithuania consistently has a higher homicide rate than the United States the United Kingdom and France combined.
Of course, you need to be 18 to own a handgun in California. He was 17. Also, it's illegal to carry a gun on any educational institution anywhere in the United States.
On January 19 2011 10:44 VoiceOfDecember wrote: I've never held a gun in my life, and even though I drool over them in pictures and whatnot, because for some reason guns are fucking awesome in theory. But I would never ever have any practical use for one, ever. I don't know why people believe they need one? Maybe because other people have them? I bet most of the people who have a gun will never use it as intended.
And for arguements sake if I had a gun to protect me and my family in my home and someone came into my house and started stealing shit. I pulled my gun on him/her and they pulled theirs on me? I'd fucking drop my gun, help him/her load up all my shit and pat 'em on the ass on the way out. No way I'd risk my own life. I'm not shooting anyone. I couldn't live with myself if I took another life, even if it was in defence. And if this guy robbing me was gonna shoot me anyway, gun or no gun? No point in me having it in the first place. Home and contents insuance will cover me. And that's an upgrade of everything that was stolen. If it was sentimental shit, that sucks, but if I'm not alive to appreciate it then whats the point.
On January 19 2011 07:46 MidKnight wrote: For some reason developed countries which have gun restriction laws don't have bad guys killing regular citizens left and right because regular citizens "oops they didn't have guns to defend themselves".
You know who has the most school shooting deaths per capita in recent history? Finland
Finland needs stricter gun restriction laws. As does USA.
Simple concept: less gun control, less gun related crime. It doesn't have to make sense to you and you don't have to like it but facts are facts.
I would love to know what your definition of "fact" is
The CCN url says three students and the article says 2 students, as well as saying that the gun fell down on the grass and shot one student in the face and one in the neck, i wonder how that works.
In a few articles I've read, it says he had an automatic pistol. If this is correct, it would explain how it shot multiple times when accidentally discharged. But I believe this would have to be a highly unusual circumstance and most likely with a highly modified gun. I can't even find anywhere that shows how many shots were fired, and since we're not allowed to have automatics in the US [ ], I don't know too much about them so don't quote me on this.
Again, just my opinion, but I find it interesting that people who are anti-guns are generally repeating material, quotes, opinions, etc. from politicians and interest groups that rely on these people for political backing, and probably care little at all for what they are actually "advocates" of. If I was a politician, I would advocate the fact that all men should put the toilet seat down after they pee just because I would probably gather support from more women, even though I care nothing about that subject at all.
okay, am i the only one that thinks guns laws, how the gun was discharged and whether or not it was accident is irrelevant to the story?
The gun was either stolen from a family member or friend, given by a family or friend or obtained illegaly on the black market. Not even the strictest of gun laws would do anything to prevent that.
Why am i thinking why did he have the gun? What is the reason he would be so compelled to fuck up his future?
Was he being bullied? Was he planning to kill a teacher? Was it to impress someone so he could fit in? Either way you have to be some kind of disturbed or afraid.
Where were his parents? How could loving parents not notice something was up? How did they not know that something was up? Or is that the kind of thing the kid was used to at home? If it was some shit at the school where the fuck were they?
This kind of shit doesnt really bug me. It happens all the time. What i dont get is that people blame guns instead of taking responsibility. The school says 'the gun was accidentaly discharged' as if it makes things better. Who the fuck cares how it was discharged? There was a gun in THEIR SCHOOL that they were absolutely oblivious to and had it not 'accidentally' gone off, the wouldnt have even known about it. That to me is a much more serious problem
Guns are not magic. It is far easier to hurt somebody seriously with a knife then a gun in contact distance given the same amount of familiarity with each. Within arms reach, you should definitely wish to be faced with a gun instead of a knife.
Firearms are not the cause of mass killings; they would happen regardless. Firearms do not necessarily make these incidents more deadly; they tend to have more wounded and less dead.
Don't blame firearms for what people do.
Just skimmed through and found this post the most ridiculous. I don't think a mass killing would be possible with a knife tbh...
Firearms definitely make these incidents more deadly. There is a much larger disconnection between the killer and their victim if they use a gun because they're killing them with the simple pull of a trigger, at range. And an accident with a dropped knife would be a cut toe, with a gun someone gets badly injured / killed.
Put it this way - A gun is made for killing, a knife is made for cutting.
Do you seriously think the problem lies in taking away the rights of people to carry arms? If I wanted to kill someone, I don't need a gun.
Guns has the best "effectiveness of ending lifes" to "availability and complexity to use" ratio (if that made sense) IMO. Sure, a malicious people who wants to harm others CAN make bombs or "drive a SUV over a crowd", but it actually requires a lot of preparation.A 16y old kid can find a pistol in his dad's drawer and go on a rampage at his school.
And wouldn't conventional wisdom should tell us that more people carrying guns (or other forms of self-defense) means less crazy people would attempt to shoot other people.
The problem is that crazy people will be able to get the gun just as easily.Americans like to act as if every random thug will be able to get a gun to commit crimes and poor citizens won't have one themselves.That doesn't actually happen all over the world where guns control takes place. If a criminal knows a regular citizen is likely to have a gun, he will get one himself.Someone will get shot.
These discussions are influenced more by the way people were raised than the actual common sense anyway.If I was from USA I would be proud of the "right which founding fathers gave me to protect myself with firearms "..You know
Those that can obtain firearms will obtain firearms anyway, legally or otherwise. Ideally, possession of firearms should be made illegal so that the common citizen can no longer legally possess a firearm. Thus you minimize the potential for stupid shit like this ever happening. You also have an overall decrease in relative threat. There is absolutely nothing that can legally be done about smuggling and the black market since those systems persist outside of the legal system anyway.
why does he have a gun in his bag? was he hunting swine/game or something and forgot to take it out?
they fire 62 grain at 3100 fps, which is good enough to exit wound.../no ceramic plates
kind of depends on which type of bullets he bought it from
7.62 x 54R mm 187 GR, steel case, armor piercing incendiary BS40 ( Level V ) 5.56 x 45 mm 52.5 GR, M995 ( Level V )
those ones would've been good enough to pass through
if he wanted to open a door, he only needs a canister+concave copper(to cut a hole)+something plastic to start the reaction same could be done via using water though ( as a jet due to a reaction )
EPT
], I don't know too much about them so don't quote me on this.
