28 killed at elementary school

[goatboy]

In other words....IF you bring a gun to a knife fight, you may survive, but you will not win in court. AND it does not even matter that the assailant brought the knife to your house, in the middle of the night and threatened you with it. IF you shoot him, you lose.

Depends, if you could legally have the gun and could justify it's use, then you would be OK. If it was a prohibited weapon it may be a different story.

[Glacier]

"Justify use" is a pretty dubious term with no clear definition. Let's say I own a couple of non-restricted fire arms such as the SKS and the CZ 585, how do I justify their use if I don't have a hunting licence? What about a .22? Do I have to get rid of it if it's a family heirloom, and all I do with guns is hunt moose? What about a semi-auto .22 cal. such as the AR-15?

[hobbyguy]

If we got sensible gun laws, then perhaps some of us will have to be willing to turn in certain types of firearms on a buy back program.

It would be costly, but I personally would be willing to to pay a temporary surtax to pay for it, and if required I would take any firearms I own that are no longer legal to own in for buy back.

I still can't see any justification for semi-automatic weapons. Yup, they're fun to shoot.

But then blowing up stuff with dynamite is fun too. I'm not allowed to have dynamite in my house (even though I once was fully certified and licensed for explosives). Boy that would stop the "mythical" stranger coming into my house, I'll put a "danger explosives" sign out front. Save me money, wouldn't need an alarm system. Bury them in a perimeter and nobody would even attempt a home invasion. Couple of shaped charges aimed at the doors.

So why am I not allowed dynamite? Because it would pose a serious danger to others. I can argue that with my experience and qualification (if I renewed it) it wouldn't be dangerous. Silly argument, isn't it?

To carry on with this silliness to another point, there are probably MORE legitimate non-military purposes for dynamite than there are for semi-automatic weapons. So if I can own a semi-automatic high capacity gun, why not dynamite. Who's standing up for my right to own and carry explosives?? I mean if you think semi-autos are fun to shoot, you oughta try a few hundred pounds of dynamite - now there's a rush.

[Glacier]

If we got sensible gun laws, then perhaps some of us will have to be willing to turn in certain types of firearms on a buy back program.

We already have sensible laws. This is why centre fired semi-autos have to be pinned to 5 rounds. No matter how far you go, you can always go further. We could simply use muzzle loaders instead of a regular single shot rifle and improve safety even further, but we known that there is a balancing act between public safety and liberty.

The dynamite argument is ridiculous. No one is arguing in favour of legalizing full-auto machine guns or dynamite. We as a society draw the line at semi-auto with limited capacity clips. In the states, they do not have limits on the magazine sizes, and that is the main difference.

Using the ban word only speaks to the emotions and comes across as holier-than-thou. Instead, they should be using their heads down there and talking limitations.

[steelrules]

"Justify use" is a pretty dubious term with no clear definition. Let's say I own a couple of non-restricted fire arms such as the SKS and the CZ 585, how do I justify their use if I don't have a hunting licence? What about a .22? Do I have to get rid of it if it's a family heirloom, and all I do with guns is hunt moose? What about a semi-auto .22 cal. such as the AR-15?

I believe "Justified use" is fairly clear. It's the same level of justification that a police officer must have before using deadly force.
Let's all hope that none of us ever have to make that decision, but if we do let's also hope that just racking an empty shotgun will be enough to make a violent deadly intruder think he better run for his life.

[hobbyguy]

My thing about the dynamite was just to illustrate the extreme. It is the same sort of thing as "is it ok to cut one tree in the forest? is ok to cut all the trees in the forest?".

The problem that I have with semi-automatics is, as you stated, that they are are modified down versions of much more lethal capacity weapons. Somewhere, and certainly out of the US, I can buy just about any capacity magazine for any gun. Hey presto! Your 5 round semi-automatic becomes something else.

I also have a problem with the "rimfire" loophole. A 50 grain hollow point 22 magnum has considerable people killing capability, and discussions of this type of weapon comes up frequently with "survivalists". Add the high capacity magazines, and these things are down right nasty. There's a youTube video of a guy firing off an HK300 22 mag, and he comes close to the speeds you'd expect from a WW2 automatic.

Just as an example of how easy it is to find high capacity magazines:

https://www.volquartsen.com/tags/22-magazines-loaders

The US gun industry is very adept at circumventing any good intentions. The rimfire exception was meant for 22's used for "plinking".

I was reading one fellow's "glowing" review of the capabilities of the newer 22 magnums, and he uses these guns in applications where the .223 (the more powerful round of the AR-15) used to be favored unless the range is beyond 200 yards. Why? Because the ammo is cheap and it's easy to carry lots of rounds.

The more I look into what's out there - the scarier it gets. These things "ain't yer grampa's 22".

[Captain Awesome]

I was reading one fellow's "glowing" review of the capabilities of the newer 22 magnums, and he uses these guns in applications where the .223 (the more powerful round of the AR-15) used to be favored unless the range is beyond 200 yards. Why? Because the ammo is cheap and it's easy to carry lots of rounds.

Canadian laws allow me to take a pistol magazine and put it into a rifle (some rifles allow it).

What do I have? Ten round capacity in a rifle.

Perfectly legal.

[hobbyguy]

I had no idea Canadian law would allow that.

I do have to give the gun industry credit for being innovative. They find ways around just about any law that isn't an outright ban.

I was surprised in my surfing at just how powerful the 17 calibre guns are. Pretty small bore, but if you want to get around some lawmakers "rimfire" notions, and notions that small bore = less power, a very impressive result. 2500+ fps and a bullet that "explodes" on contact. Nasty little devils. Oh, and now you can buy "assault" style semi-automatics with large capacity magazines in that baby calibre.

Of course because I'm a little out of touch, I think along the lines of 12 ga shotguns being not so bad for home defense etc. Then I come across a 12 ga with a short barrel (useless for hunting, skeet etc.) and equipped with twin 7 round magazines and a switch to go from one magazine to another (which circumvents some state laws on maximum magazine size). And it's pump action. I hate to think waht a nutter could do with something like that in mall or a theatre.

If only we could get all that creative talent and innovation channelled into alternative enrgey etc. - it would be like science fiction.

[daedalus]

I find that the NRA did something smart for their lobby.

By saying their "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" line, almost everyone immediately went from talking to reasonable restrictions on guns to having discussions about an armed guard at every school.
The real truth is "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is for him to never get a gun in the first place". The armed guard is only one person and would be the first target in a potential shooting, and might not win. There would have to be multiple guards to really be safe, which not only would cost a lot but would install a culture of fear in schools.

The NRA are quick to blame video games, but if video games were to blame, we would have the same problems here in Canada, the UK, Australia, and every country that gets the same video games... which is basically every country. So that can't be it.

Since we are debating about guns in schools, we are not debating about background checks for guns at gun shows or over the internet, or the other equally fair restrictions that could be put on guns.



I can understand why people would want to have guns for hunting and/or self defence(even though the odds of you needing one for that purpose is slim), but having guns that have more purpose in the armed forces then on the streets, guns that are capable of shooting 60 rounds a minute, (Aurora) and being able to buy rounds that are capable of doing the maximum damage (Newton shooting) and saying that those same guns are for the above mentioned purposes, that is nuts. I am referring to the aurora shooting now, in which the shooter (apparently) had tear gas (or smoke) grenades (why would non military members need them?), a hundred round drum (what possible use would someone have for that) and a load bearing vest (again, military use).

Im just glad we do not have their gun culture here.

[averagejoe]

San Antonio Theater Shooting

On Sunday December 17, 2012, 2 days after the CT shooting, a man went to a restaurant in San Antonio to kill his X-girlfriend. After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people. He started shooting and people in the theater started running and screaming. It’s like the Aurora, CO theater story plus a restaurant!

Now aren’t you wondering why this isn’t a lead story in the national media along with the school shooting?

There was an off duty county deputy at the theater. SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times before he had a chance to kill anyone. So since this story makes the point that the best thing to stop a bad person with a gun is a good person with a gun, the media is treating it like it never happened.

Only the local media covered it. The city is giving her a medal next week. Just thought you’d like to know.


http://hardnoxandfriends.wordpress.com/ ... -shooting/

[GenuinelyInterested]

This from the original newspaper story.

Related Link: Officials: Breakup sparked Santikos shooting
Witnesses said numerous shots were fired inside and outside the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 theater complex on Southwest Military Drive around 9:25 p.m., setting off the scramble to safety before police and EMS arrived. The complex was evacuated and sealed off for several hours.
Detective Louis Antu, spokesman for the Bexar County Sherriff's Office, said the shooting began at a nearby China Garden and “carried on into the theater.”
At one point, the suspect fired at a San Antonio Police Department patrol car, Antu said.
“He was shooting at a marked unit,” Antu said. “He knows he was shooting at an officer so that's (an) automatic (charge of) attempted capital murder.”
After the suspect reached the theater, an off duty Bexar County Sheriff officer who was working at the theater shot at him and possibly struck him, Antu said.
“She took all appropriate action to keep everyone safe in the movie theater,” Antu said.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_ ... z2GSeFDggp


A far cry from:

SHE pulled out her gun and shot the man 4 times

[Rwede]

If we got sensible gun laws, then perhaps some of us will have to be willing to turn in certain types of firearms on a buy back program.

It would be costly, but I personally would be willing to to pay a temporary surtax to pay for it, and if required I would take any firearms I own that are no longer legal to own in for buy back.

I still can't see any justification for semi-automatic weapons. Yup, they're fun to shoot.

But then blowing up stuff with dynamite is fun too. I'm not allowed to have dynamite in my house (even though I once was fully certified and licensed for explosives). Boy that would stop the "mythical" stranger coming into my house, I'll put a "danger explosives" sign out front. Save me money, wouldn't need an alarm system. Bury them in a perimeter and nobody would even attempt a home invasion. Couple of shaped charges aimed at the doors.

So why am I not allowed dynamite? Because it would pose a serious danger to others. I can argue that with my experience and qualification (if I renewed it) it wouldn't be dangerous. Silly argument, isn't it?

To carry on with this silliness to another point, there are probably MORE legitimate non-military purposes for dynamite than there are for semi-automatic weapons. So if I can own a semi-automatic high capacity gun, why not dynamite. Who's standing up for my right to own and carry explosives?? I mean if you think semi-autos are fun to shoot, you oughta try a few hundred pounds of dynamite - now there's a rush.

Spoken like a true non-gun owner.

Trying to explain to emotional nellies why I own certain firearms is a gigantic waste of time.

[averagejoe]

This also, from another original news story........

Garcia was finally stopped by an off-duty Bexar County Sheriff's Department officer who was working security at the theater. Officials said the officer, Sgt. Lisa Castellano, heard the gunfire inside the theater and ran towards the sound of the shooting to find out what was going on. Sgt. Castellano spotted Garcia coming out of a bathroom with his gun drawn and fired at him, shooting him four times.


http://www.woai.com/news/local/story/De ... Xx2kQ.cspx


From the Huffington Post..

An off-duty sheriff's deputy working security then shot the gunman.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/1 ... 15139.html

[GenuinelyInterested]

Where in ANY of the links do they back-up the blog of the original article posted?
The original states:

After he shot her, most of the people in the restaurant fled next door to a theater. The gunman followed them and entered the theater so he could shoot more people

Pretty sensational twist on events that are all verifiable from 3 other sources and proven to be untrue with a little research.

[averagejoe]

Read the articles from the local news and I'm sure you'll come up with an idea as to what happened. The point be made is that an armed security guard stopped the possibility of killing or maiming of others. Welcome back to Castanet!