quote Originally posted by GT86: As I've mentioned earlier, the urge for violence is part of us on a very deep level. Society and civilization temper and control those urges, but think of some of the things that briefly pop into you head every day. Obviously we don't act on those impulses, but they are there nonetheless. And sometimes, for any number of reasons, people let their impulses rule them. Short of locking everyone up for our own safety, there's no way to prevent these types of things from happening. If someone has decided to give in to the chaos that is a part of human nature, there will always be a way for them to destroy.

GT86, reading your post and looking at your avatar gives me the creeps!

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 04-16-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: GT86, reading your post and looking at your avatar gives me the creeps!

yeah, I've always thought that pic was a bit on the creepy side...

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Show me an example of the last time some nutcase purposely killed 30 people with a car... or a knife... or a shoelace.

Does it have to be 30 people?

http://www.militantislammon....org/article/id/1734

"(CHAPEL HILL) -- The man accused of using an SUV to attack students at UNC told investigators he was, "Disappointed there were not more people around when he attacked."

Investigators say Mohammad Taheri-azar told them he had been thinking about some type of attack for two years but had been planning this specific action for two months.

He told investigators he rented the four wheel drive vehicle because it could, "Run over things and keep going."

The warrant also says Taheri-azar had two cans of pepper spray and a five-inch folding knife.

He told investigators he intended to use the weapons if he was trapped or threatened.

Nine people were injured when he drove his vehicle through The Pit on UNC's campus."

quote Originally posted by Formula88: http://www.militantislammon....org/article/id/1734 "Nine people were injured when he drove his vehicle through The Pit on UNC's campus."

You certainly get bonus points for finding this article, but it also helps to confirm my opinion that firearms are much more efficient and effective when it comes to inflicting death and injury.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 04-16-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: You certainly get bonus points for finding this article, but it also helps to confirm my opinion that firearms are much more efficient and effective when it comes to inflicting death and injury.

Looking at a list of terrorism and mass murder incidents, it appears explosives are the most effective.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: You certainly get bonus points for finding this article, but it also helps to confirm my opinion that firearms are much more efficient and effective when it comes to inflicting death and injury.

Random chance also seems to play a part. Notice the UNC attacker's lament that there weren't more people around to run down. That was the primary reason I chose that particular article. Not only because the weapon was not a firearm, but because he intended to kill as many as possible. Had a larger crowd been there, the number would have undoubtedly be higher.

However, I do agree that firearms are more efficient. There are many things even more efficient than firearms, so I'm not going to bother with arguing what's the most efficient way to kill a large group of people. One only need look to the nightly news to see plenty of options.

quote Originally posted by GT86: Looking at a list of terrorism and mass murder incidents, it appears explosives are the most effective.

I guess for the underworld (and most psychos), Ammonium Nitrate and diesel fuel just don't have the same "cool" factor as automatic weapons.

There seems to be no limit to the things we can do to each other. I think back to when I was in the service standing a watch in the shipyards. The safe zone was behind me, anything in front of me was a threat. Sends shivers down my spine what I may have had to do to keep us safe. I could not have accomplished that with out a gun. Now I don't own any guns, but my home is littered with knives. Just another way to hurt someone if they invade my space and try to do harm to me.
If it wasn't knives it would be sticks, rope, electricity... I would come up with something if I need to.
I would like to think that I am in control of my mind and would never intentionally hurt another without just cause and I can come up with all of those ways to hurt someone without a gun. What do you think someone who has nothing else on his mind could come up with if a gun was out of the question? No matter how hard we try we are our own worse enemy, the worse weapon you have to fear is a sharp mind.

Gun control is not a way to stop violence, it may change the face of violence but it wont stop it.
In a room full of men waving sticks a man with a board with a nail in it is king.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: I guess for the underworld (and most psychos), Ammonium Nitrate and diesel fuel just don't have the same "cool" factor as automatic weapons.

There's no doubt firearms are more available than large amounts of explosive components, especially on short notice.

And I don't think many incidents in this country involve automatic weapons. There's been a disturbing trend by the anti-gun folks lately to equate semi-autos with fully automatic guns. I'm not trying to nit-pick, this misuse of terms really does make a difference.

another sad thing is that it seems that when there is one school shooting, others follow

there will probibly be some other dickbag doing the same thing in the next few weeks school shootings seem to happen in multipals

quote Originally posted by GT86: And I don't think many incidents in this country involve automatic weapons. There's been a disturbing trend by the anti-gun folks lately to equate semi-autos with fully automatic guns. I'm not trying to nit-pick, this misuse of terms really does make a difference.

As someone who has never held or fired a gun, I fully admit to not knowing an Uzi from a snoozie. However, I would find it difficult to believe that automatic weapons (semi and/or fully) have not found their way into the hands of the criminal element to some degree.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: As someone who has never held or fired a gun, I fully admit to not knowing an Uzi from a snoozie. However, I would find it difficult to believe that automatic weapons (semi and/or fully) have not found their way into the hands of the criminal element to some degree.

Semi only fires one shot for each trigger pull. They are not a recent invention, first made in late 1890's (that's right they've been around for over 100yrs) They were guite common in pistol form in WWI, U.S. adopted one in 1911, Germany in 1908. Semi auto is just a buzz word used (usually incorrectly) by media to scare people and confuse them between full (fires like a machine gun) and semi (fires only once each time trigger is pulled).

quote Originally posted by 88 Formula: Semi only fires one shot for each trigger pull.

Honest question - If a semi-automatic weapon "only fires one shot for each trigger pull", how does that differ from a manual gun (if that's the right term) when the trigger is pulled?

From somebody else who has little experience of guns, I rather think a semi-automatic gun is one which has a multiple loading system, such as a six gun or a handgun with a clip of bullets , whereas a non-semiautomatic would just have one bullet in the chamber, and has to be reloaded every time it is fired.A shotgun is slightly different, because there are some which have two barrels, and therefore the capability to fire two shots without reloading.Although I think there are some of these which have multiple magazines too now..a pump action shotgun?
Nick

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 04-17-2007).]

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Honest question - If a semi-automatic weapon "only fires one shot for each trigger pull", how does that differ from a manual gun (if that's the right term) when the trigger is pulled?

It doesn't differ much, but you can fire faster with the semi because all you have to do is pull the trigger to fire, you don't have to work a lever, bolt, pump, or thumb back a hammer between shots. In the case of a double action revolver, that's a gun with usually six chambers in a circular pattern (the cylinder), your trigger pull is long and fairly heavy because the first part of the pull rotates the cylinder to bring up the next cartridge. A single action revolver (think cowboy gun) has to have the hammer cocked manually for each shot. Some experienced shots with a well tuned double action revolver can achieve just as high fire rates as the semis.

Semi automatics just automatically throw out the spent shell and chamber a fresh one from the magazine. A full automatic will keep firing and reloading until you release the trigger. A slow cyclic rate would be about 450-500 rounds per minute, some can go up to 1300 rounds per minute or more. These figures assume unlimited ammo, real world weapons typically hold around 20 to 30 rounds (round = one cartridge).

[This message has been edited by 88 Formula (edited 04-17-2007).]

So far, I personally think, "The college" has some serious explaning. I'd like to know if a shooting took place earlier, before I'd decide to attend that day regardless if the shooting took place on the other side of the campus.

Dr. Phil is blaming violent video games for this, so that must be the reason it happened...NOT! Why can't some people just keep their mouths shut instead of making stupid statements like that? How does Dr. Phil know if this guy even played violent video games?

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Dr. Phil is blaming violent video games for this...

I believe that something was going to make this guy snap, sooner or later.
If it wasn't this, it would have been an overdraft, or a traffic ticket, or "the voices told him to", or "his pudding looked at him the wrong way", or any number of other things.
He just needed something to set him off.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Honest question - If a semi-automatic weapon "only fires one shot for each trigger pull", how does that differ from a manual gun (if that's the right term) when the trigger is pulled?

As others have said, a semi-automatic is one shot per pull of the trigger. They do automatically eject the spent cartridge, load a new one and reset the hammer or striker. In that respect, they can be termed auto-loaders. An example would be a Glock or 1911 style pistol. Weapons that are not auto-loading require you to manually work a bolt, pump, or lever to eject the spent shell and replace it with a new one. Examples would be a Remington 700 rifle, or a pump action shotgun. Older designs like the Single Action Army (the classic cowboy six-shooter), require the hammer to manually be pulled back after each shot.

A true automatic weapon (think machine gun) will fire, eject the spent shell, reload a fresh cartridge, and continue to fire until the trigger is released, the gun runs out of ammo, or it jams. Full auto weapons have been highly regulated since 1934, but they are legal to own if you jump through the federal hoops, and assuming your state allows them. But in 1986, a law was passed declaring that no new automatics were legal for civilians. As a result, pre-1986 machine guns have skyrocketed in price, costing many thousands of dollars. Possessing an unregistered machine gun is a felony punishable by 10 years.

[This message has been edited by GT86 (edited 04-17-2007).]

I have to say I was (like everyone else) speechless when I saw the news. My prayers and condolences to the families of those involved. I have a friend a VTech and I was able to get a hold of her yesterday and she is fine, although emotionally a wreck because she lost two friends.

As a college student myself, I understand why campuses have 'no carry zones'. There are plenty of kids on my campus I would not want to see carrying a weapon, but there are plenty that I would not think twice about them carrying around campus...it is a double standard. Do I think that if the campus allowed carrying would this horrible tragedy have been just as big? Probably not. But with how little self control youth have these days, I could see being allowed to carry on campus as being a bad thing also...again, there is no good answer. I feel relatively safe on my campus, but if someone decided to go on a shooting spree, my campus probably would not fair much better than Vtech. College campuses are not and can not be gated communities, they are very vulnerable to this kind of violence...and always have been.

~ Derek

quote Originally posted by avengador1: Dr. Phil is blaming violent video games for this, so that must be the reason it happened...NOT! Why can't some people just keep their mouths shut instead of making stupid statements like that? How does Dr. Phil know if this guy even played violent video games?

Dr Phil is an idiot ! Back in 1966 when a man climed a bell tower and shot 22 people where violent video games to blame? No because video games didn't even exist back then but the event happened. I would love to see mr Phil tapdance when you ask him what caused those shootings . the problem is people are F ing crazy. Their brain just takes a dump and rational though gives way to rage ,greed, jealousy, anger . . . . etc, etc, etc. humans a flawed and they break .

------------------
REMEMBER KIDS 4.9's ARE NOT SBC's

quote Originally posted by 88 Formula: It doesn't differ much, but you can fire faster with the semi because all you have to do is pull the trigger to fire, you don't have to work a lever, bolt, pump, or thumb back a hammer between shots. In the case of a double action revolver, that's a gun with usually six chambers in a circular pattern (the cylinder), your trigger pull is long and fairly heavy because the first part of the pull rotates the cylinder to bring up the next cartridge. A single action revolver (think cowboy gun) has to have the hammer cocked manually for each shot. Some experienced shots with a well tuned double action revolver can achieve just as high fire rates as the semis. Semi automatics just automatically throw out the spent shell and chamber a fresh one from the magazine. A full automatic will keep firing and reloading until you release the trigger. A slow cyclic rate would be about 450-500 rounds per minute, some can go up to 1300 rounds per minute or more. These figures assume unlimited ammo, real world weapons typically hold around 20 to 30 rounds (round = one cartridge).

quote Originally posted by GT86: As others have said, a semi-automatic is one shot per pull of the trigger. They do automatically eject the spent cartridge, load a new one and reset the hammer or striker. In that respect, they can be termed auto-loaders. An example would be a Glock or 1911 style pistol. Weapons that are not auto-loading require you to manually work a bolt, pump, or lever to eject the spent shell and replace it with a new one. Examples would be a Remington 700 rifle, or a pump action shotgun. Older designs like the Single Action Army (the classic cowboy six-shooter), require the hammer to manually be pulled back after each shot. A true automatic weapon (think machine gun) will fire, eject the spent shell, reload a fresh cartridge, and continue to fire until the trigger is released, the gun runs out of ammo, or it jams. Full auto weapons have been highly regulated since 1934, but they are legal to own if you jump through the federal hoops, and assuming your state allows them. But in 1986, a law was passed declaring that no new automatics were legal for civilians. As a result, pre-1986 machine guns have skyrocketed in price, costing many thousands of dollars. Possessing an unregistered machine gun is a felony punishable by 10 years.

Thanks very much for the lesson fellas!

One more question then - Is it true that (some) semi-automatic weapons can be illegally modified to become fully-automatic, or is this an urban myth?

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Thanks very much for the lesson fellas! One more question then - Is it true that (some) semi-automatic weapons can be illegally modified to become fully-automatic, or is this an urban myth?

Yes, and no depends on the weapon in question.
Your results would be mixed because the action may not be able to handle the resulting cyclic rate and you'd end up with a jam every 3-4 rounds.

Video games are not to blame and neither are violent movies, books, etc. BUT....they do contribute to the problem by glorifying anti-heros who go out in a blaze of gunfire. For a total loser who has no hope of ever achieving greatness but at the same time has an unquenchable desire for notoriety, a good old fashion mass murder is going to get your name in the papers, on TV, websites, trading cards, movies (Zodiac), etc. If we did not publicize the killers the way we do we might actually see a reduction in the incidents of violent crimes like this. If our movies elevated police, lawyers, and the justice system to hero status again and make criminals twisted people like with Adam-12, Perry Mason, etc. We might see people aspire to great achievement and shun social disgrace once more.

quote Originally posted by FIEROPHREK: Dr Phil is an idiot ! Back in 1966 when a man climed a bell tower and shot 22 people where violent video games to blame? No because video games didn't even exist back then but the event happened. I would love to see mr Phil tapdance when you ask him what caused those shootings . the problem is people are F ing crazy. Their brain just takes a dump and rational though gives way to rage ,greed, jealousy, anger . . . . etc, etc, etc. humans a flawed and they break .

This was being discussed on the radio this morning.
Seems that the man (a retired marine sharpshooter, a Mr. Williams, IIRC) had a brain tumor, that the doctors blamed for his rampage.
They also mentioned that the first person he killed that morning was his mother, before he left the house.

I hadn't read all the posts, just can someone tell me the gunman's motive?

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Thanks very much for the lesson fellas! One more question then - Is it true that (some) semi-automatic weapons can be illegally modified to become fully-automatic, or is this an urban myth?

Some can, but the old "you can make it fire full auto by filing down the firing pin" is BS. To convert a semi to a full-auto weapon, you need to modify the fire control group. In all weapons that I am aware of, this means replacing a number of semi-auto parts with their full-auto counterparts. And then you'd probably have a bit of work to make sure the timing of everything is correct. Some manufacturers have changed their designs so that machine work is needed to accept the full-auto parts.

While the parts themselves are not illegal, possession of full auto fire control parts and an unregistered gun that can accept those parts is a felony, even if the parts are not installed. It's called "constructive intent", and is treated the same a possessing a functional unregistered MG--10 years in the slammer.

quote Originally posted by blackrams: OK, please tell me again why we as civilians need the right to carry/own semi-automatic pistols. I'm not even a gun control advocate but this is senseless. Sorry, but this really pisses me off.

Knew it wouldnt take long for the anti gun people to chime in. This was all in a 'NO WEAPON' zone. Do you really think this guy was going to obey the laws if he wanted a gun ? If they didnt have gun stores, he could have gotten them in the alley for less money. Now think of this....If ANYONE there, as a law abiding citizen who had a permit, had a gun with them....wouldnt this have ended a lot sooner and a LOT less loss of life...? That happens here with something like a group of 60 people like at VT, law of averages would say they would have at least 2 or 3 or more with guns on them. Being outgunned, the killer wouldnt stand much of a chance. I dont think Id sit there with my gun while he took the time to shoot 50 people and reloading.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: I guess for the underworld (and most psychos), Ammonium Nitrate and diesel fuel just don't have the same "cool" factor as automatic weapons.

But its a lot more effective in getting the press to cover your deed.

------------------
1988 Fiero Formula T-tops
CJB 143 of 1252 "factory T-top cars"

quote Originally posted by rogergarrison: Knew it wouldnt take long for the anti gun people to chime in.

Roger,
Did you even bother to read the second sentence or the third?
Throwing a label on that post proves you really don't know me at the very least or you have another objective that I don't begin to fathom.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all. Some ran the other way.

Roger, you will already know I dislike guns..but I have long since realised there is no going back in the US.Or anywhere else, for that matter. It would be rather like going on a 500 mile hike through the Amazon jungle, getting lost after 250 miles, and realising you have left your compass behind when you left.No use going back to get it..you are already lost. It is time to try to find a solution to the problem...but we all know there isn't one..we are too far into the jungle. Human nature is the weakest link in the battle. It only takes one maniac to set the World on fire, and too often we wring our hands in grief from our armchairs, and do nothing. That is totally understandable too...the problem is so vast, individuals can do very little.And, as Formula88 pointed out, the majority of killings are as a result of Criminal behaviour, rather than ordinary people losing their rag.The problem is self-escalating too... the more killing sprees that go on, and innocent people dying from gunshots, the more people buy that first gun.And therefore the more mentally unstable people can get one too. The more there are out there, the more there are to be stolen.I honestly don't have a clue what can be done..short of finding a remote deserted island, and shipping the whole load of these gun-toting lunatics out there, and let them live or die at their own hands.Hasn't that been done before? Turned out to be a pretty nice place nowadays.(didn't it Aus? )
Nick
PS Roger..you are picking on the wrong guy in Ron..he isn't one of the anti-gun lobby Just wants to find some sanity in the whole mess )

[This message has been edited by fierofetish (edited 04-18-2007).]

quote Originally posted by fierogtowner: I hadn't read all the posts, just can someone tell me the gunman's motive?

Dont think anyone knows yet.. I did read on another forum that he "liked" one of the first girls he killed.. maybe she told him she wasnt interested?

Let's say that VT and other campuses said "OK, many of our students are under 21 and we're not going to allow concealed carry for anyone under 21." I can KIND OF see that, to a certain extent. The maturity factor does come in here. BUT, there were several faculty members killed/injured. Surely the University, if it trusts the faculty to take skulls full of warm mush and shape them into the thinkers and responsible citizens of tomorrow, would trust their faculty enough to allow them to carry a weapon, I would think, as long as they met their state guidelines. I really have to think that one faculty member carrying a weapon might have put an end to this before the death toll reached anywhere near what it ended up, or at the very least they'd have had a fighting chance.

John Stricker

quote Originally posted by isthiswhereiputausername?: I agree, people should be able to protect themselves instead of sitting back like sheep. If another student had a legal gun, a few shots back would make him think twice. BUT if that student shot back and hurt the attacker.... what an ordeal.. I am sure he would be on more charges then the actual attacker. Seems we live in a backwards society that protects the criminals from the innocent..

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Let's say that VT and other campuses said "OK, many of our students are under 21 and we're not going to allow concealed carry for anyone under 21." I can KIND OF see that, to a certain extent. The maturity factor does come in here. BUT, there were several faculty members killed/injured. Surely the University, if it trusts the faculty to take skulls full of warm mush and shape them into the thinkers and responsible citizens of tomorrow, would trust their faculty enough to allow them to carry a weapon, I would think, as long as they met their state guidelines. I really have to think that one faculty member carrying a weapon might have put an end to this before the death toll reached anywhere near what it ended up, or at the very least they'd have had a fighting chance. John Stricker

Very true.

Terrorism will attack us where we are most vunurable.. Our children and next generation. So we need to protect them anyway possible. If a few teachers had guns at a school my child attended.. Great!! as long as they know how to use them and will use them if needed. I know I wouldnt have a problem using one.

Before anyone trolls in about the VTech not being terrorism, I am not referring to this, but incidents in general.

I rather that he got prison for the rest of his life!

I don't feel safe anywhere, anything can happen in an instant. Yet, most of us feel safe because we know the persons name.

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Let's say that VT and other campuses said "OK, many of our students are under 21 and we're not going to allow concealed carry for anyone under 21." I can KIND OF see that, to a certain extent. The maturity factor does come in here. BUT, there were several faculty members killed/injured. Surely the University, if it trusts the faculty to take skulls full of warm mush and shape them into the thinkers and responsible citizens of tomorrow, would trust their faculty enough to allow them to carry a weapon, I would think, as long as they met their state guidelines. I really have to think that one faculty member carrying a weapon might have put an end to this before the death toll reached anywhere near what it ended up, or at the very least they'd have had a fighting chance. John Stricker

If I'm interpreting/reading what John posted correctly, a program similar to the one that Airline Pilots have to protect their aircraft and passengers would seem to be a good thing. Those allowed access to those weapons would or should be required training and the endorsement of the rest of the staff/school board or other authorities. Of course, eventually there will be an incident where some teacher goes off on students or other teachers or, some student would get hold of the weapon and go off on others. The weapon would have to be secure from theft and unauthorized use. Now, that brings up another issue, as I sit here thinking and typing this post. If the defense weapon is secured so that no unauthorized person can get their hands on it, then, can it be still availabe and a viable defense. I'm not that comfortable with teachers packing. I honestly don't have an answer apparently, no one does.

------------------
Ron
Land of the Free because of the Brave. Most gave some, some gave all. Some ran the other way.

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 04-18-2007).]

quote Originally posted by jstricker: Let's say that VT and other campuses said "OK, many of our students are under 21 and we're not going to allow concealed carry for anyone under 21." I can KIND OF see that, to a certain extent. The maturity factor does come in here. BUT, there were several faculty members killed/injured. Surely the University, if it trusts the faculty to take skulls full of warm mush and shape them into the thinkers and responsible citizens of tomorrow, would trust their faculty enough to allow them to carry a weapon, I would think, as long as they met their state guidelines. I really have to think that one faculty member carrying a weapon might have put an end to this before the death toll reached anywhere near what it ended up, or at the very least they'd have had a fighting chance. John Stricker

I tend to agree with the thought many have had that if there had been someone else armed maybe this tragedy could have been lessened to some extent. But the fact is that in a very high stress situation with all the chaos that had to be going on it would have been difficult for someone to take this guy out without the danger of collateral damage. But in this case I would have to say the cost/risk of not acting probably would have most certainly of out weighed the cost/risk of taking action. It's easy to sit back and make judgements after the fact, it's really quite normal, we are all frustrated and would like to think that something could have been done to prevent this, if only this or if only that. The fact is that this was a senseless tragedy, it made no sense what so ever, there was no way to predict it, and although there may have been some ways to minimize the result its done and over now.
They say there were signs this guy was unstable, heck, I question the sanity and metal stability of some of the folks I know and have met. What can we do? Do we lock up everyone who shows some weakness or instability in their mental state, do we force them to have counselling, do we put them under survellience, and who will watch the ones that are watching them?
There is no reason for events like this to happen, and there is no way to prevent events like this from happening. People will spend their lives looking for an answer where there is none!

Sometimes things just are what they are, this was a truly senseless tragedy.

------------------
Don't take life too seriously -- you'll never get out if it alive.

Sorry if I seemed to be picking on Rams. Im already hearing on the news that everyone is all up in arms (no pun intended) about banning gun sales again at least in that states legislature. No one gets that you cant stop a criminal from having one...no matter what you do. You could tell crooks that they get beheaded on the spot if you get caught carrying a gun and they will still keep it. I still think its a good idea to let responsible people have them and it would have def been a good thing in this and many other instances. Again, do you really think having a gun law to eliminate them will have any effect on someone bent on killing or robbing people ? I dont even like to practice shooting. I guarantee I run into a situation where I have to...I will have no hestitation to use it.

I think this is the most accurate statement so far in this and the other thread about this subject.

quote Originally posted by DRA: There is no reason for events like this to happen, and there is no way to prevent events like this from happening. People will spend their lives looking for an answer where there is none! Sometimes things just are what they are, this was a truly senseless tragedy.

No matter what you do you are never going to keep criminals, and crazies from getting their hands on guns and doing something like this.

It was a tragic loss, there is nothing we can do now except express our sympathy for those who will suffer the most, their families and friends.

------------------
Technology is great when it works,
and one big pain in the ass when it doesn't.
Detroit iron rules all the rest are just toys.