School shooting in Texas (shooter arrested)

[UKMikey]

Actually the pro-gun control side brought it up.

Are you sure? I can see people saying that spree killers might prefer ramming people with trucks to shooting them but it looks to me like it wasn't people on the pro gun-control side that originally brought them up. In fact you said it was ludicrous that I implied it was a ridiculous comparison.

It makes gun regulation look better by cherry picking the finer points of automobile regulation as somehow connected with each other although being 2 different things with their own set of regulations.

Then I guess it's a good thing nobody is doing that here, then.

 

[Northstar]

Are you sure? I can see people saying that spree killers might prefer ramming people with trucks to shooting them but it looks to me like it wasn't people on the pro gun-control side that originally brought them up. In fact you said it was ludicrous that I implied it was a ridiculous comparison.

I thought you were only talking about the last page or so. So apologies.

And what I said in the post you linked to has nothing to do with the ease of accessing either thing. But since you brought it up, you never did address my follow up post.

Granted neither was in the U.S., but I quickly found this one in France and this one in India.

 

[UKMikey]

And what I said in the post you linked to has nothing to do with the ease of accessing either thing. But since you brought it up, you never did address my follow up post.

I did partially address it but not directly to you. The French incident resulted in three injuries and no deaths - hardly comparable to the worst school shooting incident and thus unattractive to a murderous loner.

The Indian incident didn't seem applicable because it sounded like the school and street would be more crowded than in the US leaving no reason for a spree killer to choose it over a concealed weapon.

Neither of them seemed like compelling reasons for armed nutters to drive trucks into their targets instead. Vehicles also seem harder to target specific people or types of people than an assailant with a gun walking the corridors of his alma mater.

 

[Northstar]

I did partially address it but not directly to you. The French incident resulted in one or two deaths, can't recall which at the moment, hardly comparable to the worst school shooting incident and thus unattractive to a murderous loner.

So there's an acceptable amount of deaths caused by lunatics?

Neither of them seemed like compelling reasons for armed nutters to drive trucks into their targets instead.

And neither were meant to. Your original post mocked the mere idea that it could happen, my post was showing that it very much could.

It's hard to drive a truck into a classroom. I guess they could crash it through the window Terminator style but I'm sure people would see it coming.

And also, immediately before and after classes pretty much all the students are located right outside the school in large groups.

 

[UKMikey]

So there's an acceptable amount of deaths caused by lunatics?

That's not at all what I'm saying. Read my post again. The original posts argued that lunatics have no reason to switch from guns to trucks if they want to kill a lot of people.

And neither were meant to. Your original post mocked the mere idea that it could happen, my post was showing that it very much could.

If it could happen, it'd certainly happen in a very different way. It's hard to stalk up and down corridors targetting (for example) pretty girls to kill as school shooters have done in the past. Unless you take an RC truck and ram them really hard perhaps. That's why I'm mocking the idea that one method is a direct substitute for another and/or could replace the other.

And also, immediately before and after classes pretty much all the students are located right outside the school in large groups.

See above. People leave school at different times. They're not all going to stand around in a big group so a mad driver can target the ones he wants to. If he just drives at the crowd hoping to kill them all he'll likely be stopped or some of them will jump out of the way before he gets them all. Once again, people would see it coming.

 

[Northstar]

That's not at all what I'm saying. Read my post again. The original posts argued that lunatics have no reason to switch from guns to trucks if they want to kill a lot of people.

I've read it multiple times, still seems to say you find a certain number of deaths acceptable. Certainly even 2 deaths caused by a lunatic should be unacceptable?

If it could happen, it'd certainly happen in a very different way. It's hard to stalk up and down corridors targetting (for example) pretty girls to kill as school shooters have done in the past. Unless you take an RC truck and ram them really hard perhaps. That's why I'm mocking the idea that one method is a direct substitute for another could replace the other.

You keep trying to make it out like nobody would ever use a car to kill people when we've seen it countless times, there's even been a few cases in your own back yard. Just because it's not done as frequently or doesn't result in as many deaths doesn't mean the prospect is ludicrous.

People leave school at different times.

Perhaps in the UK they do, but here a vast majority start and end their day at the same time. And once that final bell rings everyone flocks out of the school in giant mobs, usually out of one or two main entrances. The morning is admittedly usually a little less chaotic due to different bus schedules, but there's still usually large crowds loitering prior to the start of classes.

 

[UKMikey]

I've read it multiple times, still seems to say you find a certain number of deaths acceptable. Certainly even 2 deaths caused by a lunatic should be unacceptable?

I edited the post after I followed your link. Actually no deaths were caused by the driver. I would find no deaths an acceptable number personally but I'm not sure a murderous lunatic who wanted to kill people would. Stop trying to ascribe a viewpoint to me that I clearly don't support.

You keep trying to make it out like nobody would ever use a car to kill people when we've seen it countless times, there's even been a few cases in your own back yard. Just because it's not done as frequently or doesn't result in as many deaths doesn't mean the prospect is ludicrous.

Countless times, not at schools, perpetrated by Islamic terrorists and not by the kind of people who shoot up those schools. To suggest that that latter group of people are just as likely to adopt such a method of killing people sounds ridiculous to me for the reasons I've stated throughout the thread. I'm not responsible for your misinterpreting my post as saying "nobody would ever use a car to kill people".

Perhaps in the UK they do, but here a vast majority start and end their day at the same time. And once that final bell rings everyone flocks out of the school in giant mobs, usually out of one or two main entrances. The morning is admittedly usually a little less chaotic due to different bus schedules, but there's still usually large crowds loitering prior to the start of classes.

Addressed in the previous post.

If he just drives at the crowd hoping to kill them all he'll likely be stopped or some of them will jump out of the way before he gets them all. Once again, people would see it coming.

 

[Northstar]

Stop trying to ascribe a viewpoint to me that I clearly don't support.

Well, you don't seem to have a problem doing it yourself. Hell, this started with me agreeing with you!

It's like prisonermonkeys never left.

Countless times, not at schools, perpetrated by Islamic terrorists and not by the kind of people who shoot up those schools. To suggest that that latter group of people are just as likely to adopt such a method of killing people sounds ridiculous to me for the reasons I've stated throughout the thread. I'm not responsible for your misinterpreting my post as saying "nobody would ever use a car to kill people".

Again, just because the exact scenario hasn't happened, doesn't mean it won't or can't happen.

Addressed in the previous post.

Not really. But whatever, I'm done. Peace out.

 

[Biggles]

Wow. I can't believe this has generated so much discussion! In the US & Canada it is much more common for teenagers to drive, even to own cars, than it is in Europe. Even if a teenager doesn't have the ability to rent a vehicle, or borrow one, stealing one would not be that difficult.

But the point I was making, is that I believe that the copycat aspect of mass shootings is VERY important. I think there's probably a visceral appeal in shooting people for these individuals & other ways of killing don't have the same appeal. But the idea of hitting people with a vehicle COULD start to attract people with sociopathic/psychopathic tendencies. The guy in Toronto who killed 10 people with a van - I'm going to guess that he had no familiarity with guns, didn't know how to get one - something that is not as easy in Canada as it would be in most places in the US - & was inspired by other vehicle attacks he had heard about. This kind of thing could easily become more common in the future.

 

[Scaff]

It's a convenient way for anti gun people to compare it to something that is more regulated.

Inaccurate assumption is inaccurate.

Actually the pro-gun control side brought it up.

Personally I agree that it’s a bad analogy as both are way too easy to obtain.

I brought it up, and not as an analogy, but as a comparison between two groups of tools that both require a degree of training to operate safely and when not operated separately pose a risk to the operator and others.

It's however rather enlightening to see how that ended up getting me cast as holding certain views or positions without certain members even bothering to ask!

 

[UKMikey]

It's however rather enlightening to see how that ended up getting me cast as holding certain views or positions without certain members even bothering to ask!

For some reason I know how you feel. I guess that's the gun debate for you.

 

[Northstar]

It's however rather enlightening to see how that ended up getting me cast as holding certain views or positions without certain members even bothering to ask!

I was basing it on your overall history here. I should have asked first and I apologize for placing a view on you without doing so.

 

[Scaff]

I was basing it on your overall history here. I should have asked first and I apologize for placing a view on you without doing so.

If you were basing it on my overall history here (which goes back a good decade) you would know that I have no fundamental issue with guns at all, that I grew up around guns and was taught to shoot/gun safety from a young age by my grandfather (who learnt his skills as a Para and gamekeeper). That I've owned guns, that some of my guns were taken as part of the UK ban on handguns.

I don't currently own guns (I now live in a large town and have no need of them), but I do know people who own guns and I have no issue with them doing so.

I am pro gun control, but lets me honest unless you are for zero regulations at all on gun ownership (and that would mean anyone, any age) everyone has a degree of control they are comfortable with. I have always been, and firmly remain, of the belief that to own a gun you should be able to demonstrate that you are safe to do so, know and understand its risks and your responsibilities. To that end I do believe that current gun regulations in most states do not seem to achieve that.

 

[Danoff]

I have always been, and firmly remain, of the belief that to own a gun you should be able to demonstrate that you are safe to do so, know and understand its risks and you responsibilities. To that end I do believe that current gun regulations in most states do not seem to achieve that.

We do this with all sorts of things, all the way down to Freon. You need a license (prescription) to buy lots of different kinds of drugs, even some pretty benign ones. Codine cough syrup for crying out loud. I'm not in favor of all of those regulations, but licensing people to purchase and own firearms (differently depending on the firearm), makes sense. Essentially it's you paying for and aiding the government in the process of determining whether you have the right to own it.

 

[TheGeologist]

Here we go again

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.indystar.com/amp/644021002

 

[MustangRyan]

Again, as a gun owner and enthusiast, it's way past time for a federal law (with harsh penalties) for failing to reasonably secure your firearms in a way that allows easy access to anyone that is not authorized to purchase, own, or possess a gun.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

Which may point to a cultural issue being a major factor, sensible gun owners and families will teach these things, but I suspect that's a minority.

The ease of availability combined with the casual attitude, it makes sense when compared to the Swiss who have similar levels of ownership (per head), but a very different approach to ownership.
.

I wouldn't call it a minority. We know from stats that the nearly 300 million guns in circulation is owned by a small portion of the populous, and that those who own that are frequent gun buyers and arguably collectors, hunters, sportsman. The type of people that would know respectable and sensible ownership of such a collection of weapons.

The run of the mill, first time buyers which supposedly aren't as many clearly don't have this sensibility. However, a CCW class and actually being active and practicing with said weapon and maybe even trying local shooting events could help those with little to no knowledge. Rather than the casual perception which seemingly new gun owners have because they probably see it from a media driven stand point, and then let their gun sit about with no practice no effort to learn, with "safety in mind".

 

[Scaff]

I wouldn't call it a minority. We know from stats that the nearly 300 million guns in circulation is owned by a small portion of the populous, and that those who own that are frequent gun buyers and arguably collectors, hunters, sportsman. The type of people that would know respectable and sensible ownership of such a collection of weapons.

The run of the mill, first time buyers which supposedly aren't as many clearly don't have this sensibility. However, a CCW class and actually being active and practicing with said weapon and maybe even trying local shooting events could help those with little to no knowledge. Rather than the casual perception which seemingly new gun owners have because they probably see it from a media driven stand point, and then let their gun sit about with no practice no effort to learn, with "safety in mind".

So why not remove this issue full stop?

Require people to demonstrate they know this before the can own a gun, make them responsible for those guns they then own.

The Swiss are still a good comparison, they have similar levels of ownership, with significantly lower levels of gun use in crimes. Yet the licencing system is not significantly different to the US.

The main difference is that they do actually gave a 'well regulated militia' as every citizen gets gun safety hammered into them during national service (and you remain conscripted in the militia until well into adulthood). So it seems that to allow large rates of gun ownership in a population works fine, as long as they are all well trained, and regularly retrained in safe gun use and ownership.

It's also worth noting that the Swiss constitution also has a right to bear arms and requires a well regulated militia.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

So why not remove this issue full stop?

Require people to demonstrate they know this before the can own a gun, make them responsible for those guns they then own.

The Swiss are still a good comparison, they have similar levels of ownership, with significantly lower levels of gun use in crimes. Yet the licencing system is not significantly different to the US.

The main difference is that they do actually gave a 'well regulated militia' as every citizen gets gun safety hammered into them during national service (and you remain conscripted in the militia until well into adulthood). So it seems that to allow large rates of gun ownership in a population works fine, as long as they are all well trained, and regularly retrained in safe gun use and ownership.

It's also worth noting that the Swiss constitution also has a right to bear arms and requires a well regulated militia.

I don't know ask those that would block that? Be it here or in general government.

I imagine it would be challenged in courts by those same people if it were made a mandatory thing. We the reason being it's a violation of the second amendment, and the main argument being that a mandatory safety class or concealed weapons class hinders their right to bear arms. However, that isn't the only issue potentially. The question then becomes would it be run by Federal outfits? Would it be a new requirement to FFL acquirement, if it is, would this then destroy smaller FFLs that don't really have the time to put into this. Would those FFL dealers get government support/funding to establish these classes, and not have to pay out of pocket? Since people already have to pay for a CCW (something every gun owner should invest in I think), would the price go up if it were a mandatory thing? Would you only be allowed to buy a weapon so long as you took the class that same day you were to become owner of it? Would you have to do this every time you bought a weapon? What about regions that don't have the ability to shoot certain weapons at indoor ranges and must drive miles out to open ranges?

While I think it sounds reasonable, I actually then stop and think well what is the downside to this that may put people off of it, and law makers more importantly. And that is the majority of what I see, and to me I think that's worth it, but others will argue it's not.

As for your insistence to [Insert this country here] as an argument, there is a big difference between the nation your using as an example an the U.S.

Military isn't mandatory service, sure you have to sign up for draft enlistment if it ever became a thing again. Outside of that you have no reason to worry about the selective services agreement when you turn 18, unless you plan to actively enlist. And even if you enlist, and get taught the strict gun safety they teach you in Basic (which is brief), it doesn't mean the attitude is that ingrained in people after. We know this because military members have committed crime just the same.

The fact is there is plenty of ability here in the states for people to have the knowledge to properly own, maintain, and practice the use of a weapon they purchase. And again it could be argued that many of them successfully do this. Those that do not have the right to not do that, but the question remains would doing such a thing still prevent these acts?

 

[stonesfan129]

People who support the repeal of the second amendment do not realize it would never happen. The only way to stop the bad guys with guns is with force (i.e. good guys with guns).

 

[MustangRyan]

People who support the repeal of the second amendment do not realize it would never happen. The only way to stop the bad guys with guns is with force (i.e. good guys with guns).

The real reason it would never happen is that no one in America is going to go door to door collecting hundreds of millions of guns. The police won't do it, the military won't do it, and the politicians damn sure aren't going to do it.

 

[AbeFroman75]

It's also worth noting that the Swiss constitution also has a right to bear arms and requires a well regulated militia.

Can you please provide a source for that. Then please notify the US Library of Congress so they can make a correction

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php

....regulatory systems aim at preventing abuse of firearms while upholding the statutory right to bear arms,3] which is based on longstanding Swiss traditions

It's apparently easier to buy a gun with the fun switch in Switzerland than in the land of the free.

..but I live in CA so it's probably easier to buy a gun in the UK than here.




Edit2:

So to obtain the vehicle you have to provide proof that you have been able to demonstrate the ability to use a vehicle in a safe and proficient manner (which takes time, practice and testing).
.

No, that is incorrect.

To obtain a motor vehicle in most states you are not required to show an ID or have a DL. A 13 year old illegal immigrant can technically purchase a car in this country....if you're asking if they can operate the vehicle on public streets, then that would be a correct statement. They would need a license. But you don't need one to purchase....unless you are getting a loan in which case you must be over 18 or have a parent cosigner because a minor can't enter a contract by themselves here. If you are paying with cash, if it's under a certain amount such that it doesn't need to be reported to the IRS or if you're paying cash to a private party then you should be fine.

 

[TexRex]

People who support the repeal of the second amendment do not realize it would never happen.

Is anyone here throwing the word "repeal" around at all, let alone in a meaningful way? That you were so compelled to revive a thread--one created to discuss a particular incident, and did so without responding to any particular comment within it, when a thread dedicated to the discussion of gun ownership rights and legislation that might affect them already exists--suggests that you perceive someone making such a sweeping declaration.

 

[UKMikey]

The only way to stop the bad guys with guns is with force (i.e. good guys with guns).

I'm not sure how the teacher being armed in the recent Noblesville school shooting would have made things any better, but I suppose that's irrelevant. It seems to me that the bad guy was the shooter's parent in this case. There was no thread raised for this incident.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...two-guns-shoots-teacher-student-idUSKCN1IQ1Z7

 

[Scaff]

Can you please provide a source for that. Then please notify the US Library of Congress so they can make a correction

http://www.loc.gov/law/help/firearms-control/switzerland.php

It's apparently easier to buy a gun with the fun switch in Switzerland than in the land of the free.

..but I live in CA so it's probably easier to buy a gun in the UK than here.

I think you might be getting mixed up here. Nothing the USLOC states is at odds with what I have said, unless you are getting mixed up with the terms statutory and constitutional and using US definitions of the two on other countries.

If that's the case then lets use more general terms, Swiss law enshrines the right to bear arms on its citizens (with certain limits - just as US does), a right that is arguably more protected from governmental abuse given that Switzerland is one of the few direct democracies in the world.

As such given that I'm not at odds with the LOC I don't really see what I would need to correct?

Mixed up terms aside: https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS99/rpt\olr\htm/99-R-0845.htm

No, that is incorrect.

To obtain a motor vehicle in most states you are not required to show an ID or have a DL. A 13 year old illegal immigrant can technically purchase a car in this country....if you're asking if they can operate the vehicle on public streets, then that would be a correct statement. They would need a license. But you don't need one to purchase....unless you are getting a loan in which case you must be over 18 or have a parent cosigner because a minor can't enter a contract by themselves here. If you are paying with cash, if it's under a certain amount such that it doesn't need to be reported to the IRS or if you're paying cash to a private party then you should be fine.

Legal ownership and use was clearly implicit throughout the entire discussion.

 

[AbeFroman75]

I think you might be getting mixed up here. Nothing the USLOC states is at odds with what I have said, unless you are getting mixed up with the terms statutory and constitutional and using US definitions of the two on other countries.

If that's the case then lets use more general terms, Swiss law enshrines the right to bear arms on its citizens (with certain limits - just as US does), a right that is arguably more protected from governmental abuse given that Switzerland is one of the few direct democracies in the world.

As such given that I'm not at odds with the LOC I don;t really see what I would need to correct?

Please point to me where in the Swiss constitution they state the right to bear arms (Your words, not mine).
Please point to me where in the USLoC page it says "the Swiss constitution has a right to bear arms...." Your words, not mine. If it doesn't

You are at odds with the USLoC, unless you have some new information, which case I would once again advise that you immediately notify them.

I'm not the one that confuses a protected right and one that is granted to you by law. If it is not a protected right that means it can be easily stripped away. Are you familiar with what protected means?

Edit: Even in your own link, first sentence in the Summary
"Swiss federal gun laws entitle citizens to acquire, own, and carry most types of weapons"

That is not the same as a protected right. That is a statutory right.

Legal ownership and use was clearly implicit throughout the entire discussion.

Were these your words?

So to obtain the vehicle you have to provide proof that you have been able to demonstrate the ability to use a vehicle.......

Had you said drive on public roads, you would be correct. You didn't.

 

[Scaff]

Please point to me where in the Swiss constitution they state the right to bear arms (Your words, not mine).
Please point to me where in the USLoC page it says "the Swiss constitution has a right to bear arms...." Your words, not mine. If it doesn't

You are at odds with the USLoC, unless you have some new information, which case I would once again advise that you immediately notify them.

I'm not the one that confuses a protected right and one that is granted to you by law. If it is not a protected right that means it can be easily stripped away. Are you familiar with what protected means?

Quite frankly you're the one who is expecting the Swiss and US legal and political system to work identically, which is absurd.

I'm not, if you wish to see that as some kind of pedantic victory then feel free. The basic fact (as already referenced a number of times) is that the Swiss have a legally protected right to arms, one that the government can't remove without the explicit will of the people (as a direct democracy).

The USLoC states the Swiss have a right to bear arms, if you wish to test that to absurd levels of pedantry then be my guest, I have no intention of entertaining such stupidity.

Were these your words?

So to obtain the vehicle you have to provide proof that you have been able to demonstrate the ability to use a vehicle.......

Had you said drive on public roads, you would be correct. You didn't.

Do you not understand the word implicit?

Its odd that the only person who feels the need to explore this frankly bonkers line is yourself, everyone involved in the conversation (on both sides) seem to quite clearly understand that legal ownership and operation was implicit in the entire conversation.

However just for the cheap seats, pedants and other assorted folk challenged by the clearly implicit:

I am talking about legal ownership and operation

Do I need to go back and edit it into every post on the topic before it sinks in?

 

[TenEightyOne]

"Swiss federal gun laws entitle citizens to acquire, own, and carry most types of weapons"

That is not the same as a protected right. That is a statutory right.

They're the same thing in common language and in legal effect. It depends where and when you use the words.

You pick an interesting case in Switzerland given that their armament laws go back to the 1500s and were a heavily influential model to the Founding Fathers. That's the very reason why the US Constitution is organised like the British Constitution but inspired by Swiss law and values. If you're simply using 'protected' versus 'statutory' to show age then that Swiss inspiration wins by about 500 years.

 

[LMSCorvetteGT2]

They're the same thing in common language and in legal effect. It depends where and when you use the words.

You pick an interesting case in Switzerland given that their armament laws go back to the 1500s and were a heavily influential model to the Founding Fathers. That's the very reason why the US Constitution is organised like the British Constitution but inspired by Swiss law and values. If you're simply using 'protected' versus 'statutory' to show age then that Swiss inspiration wins by about 500 years.

Not my wording so not sure what you're getting at since I'd have to actually look back at my post. So I'm guessing you edited the post you are quoting and are paraphrasing? Or had planned to comment on a post I did do, didn't actually follow through or just forgot, and then quoted a new post and while editing happened to not check and see who it was.

 

[UKMikey]

Not my wording so not sure what you're getting at since I'd have to actually look back at my post. So I'm guessing you edited the post you are quoting and are paraphrasing? Or had planned to comment on a post I did do, didn't actually follow through or just forgot, and then quoted a new post and while editing happened to not check and see who it was.

I think he meant to quote post #326.