2018-03-20, 15:54 | Link #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2012
|
A School Shooting in Maryland
Unlike the Florida one, only two students were shot and as far as I know are still alive at the time of this posting, Do to an officer at the school returning fire and killing the shooter during the incident preventing this one becoming another Florida tragedy
__________________
|
2018-03-21, 17:46 | Link #5 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: A city with a small mountain in the middle
|
The investigation better tell us how the 17-year-old managed to get his hands on a gun, especially with all the noise that has been made about restricting gun access to underage people since Parkland. You would expect people and gun merchants to be more vigilant on their hardware as well.
|
2018-03-21, 20:25 | Link #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
You cannot legally purchase a handgun at 17 years of age.
Also, Maryland requires all legal gun sales to have both licensing and registration of handguns. http://mdsp.maryland.gov/Organizatio...onLicense.aspx This weapon was illegal and numerous Maryland gun laws were broken, as well as numerous Federal firearms laws.
__________________
|
2018-03-21, 21:34 | Link #8 | |
Carbon
Join Date: Nov 2003
|
Quote:
imagine how many people would have been dead if the shooter had an Assault Riffle instead of a Glock |
|
2018-03-22, 14:15 | Link #9 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIysLkewNwc I realize the media has been lying about this for decades in the US to sell stories and now use the term for clickbait, but the truth is that normally pistols are used in these mass shootings, and when a rifle is used it can be anything from a bolt action rifle (Charles Whitman used a .30-06 bolt-action to kill 15-people and wound 31 others in 1966) to a semi-automatic paramilitary rifle. Actual assault rifles have never been used in a mass shooting in the US, even when they were legal to buy prior to 1986. This is what an actual assault rifle costs in the US. https://machineguncentral.com/ViewDe...6-98114bc5bf5b And no, the weapon type really does not matter. Suing-Hei Cho killed 32-people and injured 17 others with a glock pistol and a Walter P22 (.22 caliber) using only 10 and 8-round magazines in the Virginia Tech shooting. https://www.cnn.com/2013/10/31/us/vi...cts/index.html What matters is if there is a person who can STOP the incident when it starts or better still, report the person when they declare their intent to commit such an act and get the police involved to stop them before they act on such a threat. http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2018/02/15/g...hool-shooting/ It would be interesting to know if this attempted shooter in Maryland (thank goodness for the armed Resource officer who stopped him) and the bomber in Austin Texas were on SSRIs. That information has not been released yet. If they were, then the pattern of psychiatric drugs being used by people committing these acts will continue. http://kellybroganmd.com/mass-shooti...hiatric-drugs/
__________________
|
|
2018-03-22, 14:31 | Link #10 | ||
cho~ kakkoii
Moderator
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: 3rd Planet
|
Quote:
Please don't overload me with links. Take mercy. On an unrelated subject matter, Youtube is now banning certain videos on gun-modification, high powered rifle, and such. Citi Bank also announced they will restrict gun sales by its partners. The pressure is on. I wonder how these gun companies will react once the squeeze on the money starts to become unbearable. Quote:
__________________
|
||
2018-03-22, 15:38 | Link #11 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
|
Quote:
http://behindthetower.org/the-little-metal-bottle Steven Paddock was on Diazepam, which according to Pfizer, can cause psychosis if combined with alcohol (Paddock was a heavy drinker). https://www.reviewjournal.com/local/...-drug-in-june/ Quote:
https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...-conservatives As for Citibank, they (like other companies) have done this before, and will slowly walk it back. They've been engaging in this type of public relations nonsense since the 1990s and it will not effect the gun industry at all because it will not be permanent.
__________________
|
||
2018-03-23, 18:54 | Link #15 | ||
Senior Member
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
|
||
2018-03-23, 21:06 | Link #16 |
Part-time misanthrope
Join Date: Mar 2007
|
That cherry picked example illustrates the point of needing a gun to be a good guy perfectly. Why don't you exchange stories with Gary Kleck, I'm sure he can tell you millions of stories about guns used for self-defense.
I also wonder what exactly this part is you're doing. Talking people into after they shoot defend someone, they can shoot them again with another gun? Being a gun collector missionary? Introducing friends to the joys of hunting? Last edited by Eisdrache; 2018-03-23 at 21:22. |
2018-03-24, 02:26 | Link #18 | |
Senior Member
|
Quote:
As well as doing their part exercising their right protected under the Constitution.
__________________
|
|
2018-03-24, 13:26 | Link #19 |
Casting a spell on you...
Graphic Designer
|
It's not an untrue statement that you can defend people with guns, but it's circular logic to say that you NEED guns to defend. Sure, one can say you can have. But I think the crux of the feeling behind better regulation, seeing the passion of these students (enough that one girl throws up from sheer emotion on stage on national television).
And that is something proper education and training can't help with, it is an absolute necessity to make firearms harder to obtain for someone with a weaker state of mind. We've seen even trained miltary personnel lash out, and honestly, the combo of working out more cleanly enforced regulation coupled with better programs to find and work on individuals who might lash out like that is certainly a more effective strategy than proper training or believing that tighter school security will do much of anything. We could go back to the days without proper regulation and where people enacted vigilante justice and had the rotting corpses of lawbreakers on display as a so called deterrent, but since that didn't really deter many people from indulging in violent crime, why think that just educating people about firearms would help? Again, stricter regulation seems to be the way to go, and the idea that it'll end up "neutering" civilians from protecting themselves is short sighted at best, downright dumb at worst. |
2018-03-24, 13:49 | Link #20 | |
formerly ogon bat
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Mexico
Age: 53
|
Quote:
Save the NRA spiel about "more guns would make everybody safer", if that were true OECD member countries with the highest rates of firearms ownership would have the lowest gun violence rates. |
|
|
|