Arm the teachers!

MDS posted:

Wow! You guys (Huge and Mike-B) know a lot about this stuff. Sure you aren't Americans 

I've been around sports rifles & other guns all my life,  obviously it's next to impossible in UK & I now only use/own guns in USA where I go to on business/holiday (vacation) 2 or 3 times a year.    I part own (share) a few AR15's & a Remington 700 target rifle.   I own outright Smith & Wesson .38 revolver & 9mm semi.   

Huge, Mike-B:  I'm impressed and most certainly won't pick an argument with either of you 

..and I watched 'Saving Private Ryan' twice.

This is the US Federal Assault Weapons Ban which was instituted in 1994 during President Clinton time and was let to expire ten years later by our brilliant politicians assisted by the generosity of the NRA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._Assault_Weapons_Ban

Not perfect (nothing is) but dearly missed.

IMHO, people who get paid to protect students from criminals and fail to do their job should be prosecuted as criminals themselves.

Arming the teachers is a stupid idea as it's not their job and they haven't been trained to do this. 

Haim Ronen posted:

..and I watched 'Saving Private Ryan' twice.

This is the US Federal Assault Weapons Ban which was instituted in 1994 during President Clinton time and was let to expire ten years later by our brilliant politicians assisted by the generosity of the NRA:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/..._Assault_Weapons_Ban

Not perfect (nothing is) but dearly missed.

 

Haim, Thank you for the reference - most interesting.

A fixed stock AK47 (or AK74) and fixed stock AR-15 would not classify as "Assault Weapons" under the ban (but a 'bump stock' modified AR15 probably would).  (Although the AKs are still banned from import into the US under different legislation; unless fitted with a custom hunting stock).

All the posts here seem to be focussing on what should be done about guns.

I think this misses the point. I think this is a social and public health issue. The US is not alone in having a society with gross inequalities, disenfranchised youth and ubiquitous and often fetishized violence. Combine that with a lack of consistent young adult mental health care and you have the current situation. Guns are just the means; examine the 'motives' that makes people want to express themselves by killing large numbers of their peers.

Bruce

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

All the posts here seem to be focussing on what should be done about guns.

I think this misses the point. I think this is a social and public health issue. The US is not alone in having a society with gross inequalities, disenfranchised youth and ubiquitous and often fetishized violence. Combine that with a lack of consistent young adult mental health care and you have the current situation. Guns are just the means; examine the 'motives' that makes people want to express themselves by killing large numbers of their peers.

Bruce you make an eminently sensible point, however I don’t think anyone who suggests gun control sees it as the whole solution, however it does (IMO) play a part in the solution.  

But the motive side is much harder to tackle, it’s not the topic under discussion here, but the whole arena of crime and the drive to increase prison sentences is the same fallacy and failing to actually tackle the causes of crime just deal with the consequences.

Bruce Woodhouse posted:

All the posts here seem to be focussing on what should be done about guns.

I think this misses the point. I think this is a social and public health issue. <snip>

Bruce

Not quite all, I made a few observation about social change and the potential outcomes about 20% of the way down page 2.

Yes social change is the only way to fix this.
As the gun lobby so frequently points out: "...people kill people."  The easy availability of guns just makes it a LOT easier for them to do it!

Even considering the later clarification of thinking ... the idea that “someone who is skilled with firearms” (paraphrased) is capable of taking a life in the event of an attack is a fallacy.  Even highly skilled military and law enforcement officers struggle when push comes to shove.

And with the comments coming against armed officers who fail to stop such an attack... who would be willing to take on the responsibility.

No-one has yet answered my questions below. People, particularly perhaps Americans who live with the gun culture may think them naive, but they are genuine questions 

Innocent Bystander posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

I apologise for my ignorance, but could you please clarify when a gun designed for shooting people becomes an “assault weapon”?

I should have asked, and what makes the distinction, other than an arbitrary specification for parameters such as rate of fire or kinetic energy of fire, unless the latter cut off is that below which death or serious injury is unlikely?

And:

Innocent Bystander posted:

And if there is an explanation, explain how with free availability of guns other than fully automatic weapons means that removing the latter from ready availability will stop people entering schools and murdering or maiming numerous students if that is what they desire to do?

Any takers? 

Innocent Bystander posted:

No-one has yet answered my questions below. People, particularly perhaps Americans who live with the gun culture may think them naive, but they are genuine questions 

Innocent Bystander posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

I apologise for my ignorance, but could you please clarify when a gun designed for shooting people becomes an “assault weapon”?

I should have asked, and what makes the distinction, other than an arbitrary specification for parameters such as rate of fire or kinetic energy of fire, unless the latter cut off is that below which death or serious injury is unlikely?

And:

Innocent Bystander posted:

And if there is an explanation, explain how with free availability of guns other than fully automatic weapons means that removing the latter from ready availability will stop people entering schools and murdering or maiming numerous students if that is what they desire to do?

Any takers? 

IB -

There are several good definitions of “assault rifle” on the Wikipedia page, but one thing that seems common among those definitions is a removable, high capacity magazine. This is an obvious requirement for a weapon of war, where lots of bullets need to be rapidly fired.

Banning these weapons will not eliminate school shootings, but it has the potential to limit loss of life. Even a far right Republican like Senator Marco Rubio now admits that, had this latest shooter not had easy access to high capacity magazines, lives could have been saved in the Parkland, Florida massacre.

To my thinking, the banning of assault weapons with high capacity magazines is a small, but essential first step for improving public safety.

Hook

I had no idea that so many of you were experts on guns, rifles, assault weapons. This, and the rising target of the topics about gear from a financial perspective are making me lose any pleasure and will to go on taking part. With all respect for anyone's hobbies and toys. Lately there seems to be nothing else than 552s and killing machines. It's rather depressing.

M.

Hook posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

No-one has yet answered my questions below. People, particularly perhaps Americans who live with the gun culture may think them naive, but they are genuine questions 

Innocent Bystander posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

I apologise for my ignorance, but could you please clarify when a gun designed for shooting people becomes an “assault weapon”?

I should have asked, and what makes the distinction, other than an arbitrary specification for parameters such as rate of fire or kinetic energy of fire, unless the latter cut off is that below which death or serious injury is unlikely?

And:

Innocent Bystander posted:

And if there is an explanation, explain how with free availability of guns other than fully automatic weapons means that removing the latter from ready availability will stop people entering schools and murdering or maiming numerous students if that is what they desire to do?

Any takers? 

IB -

There are several good definitions of “assault rifle” on the Wikipedia page, but one thing that seems common among those definitions is a removable, high capacity magazine. This is an obvious requirement for a weapon of war, where lots of bullets need to be rapidly fired.

Banning these weapons will not eliminate school shootings, but it has the potential to limit loss of life. Even a far right Republican like Senator Marco Rubio now admits that, had this latest shooter not had easy access to high capacity magazines, lives could have been saved in the Parkland, Florida massacre.

To my thinking, the banning of assault weapons with high capacity magazines is a small, but essential first step for improving public safety.

Hook

Ignoring the fact that Wikipedia is not an authoritative source of information, even if that definition has become common parlance in some circles of weaponry specialists, in reality it appears to be an aritrary definition without any reasoning as to in what way it is a distinction that does or should  define  “assault”. Rather, it is simply a definition of capacity of weapon: i.e effectively describing how many people it might be possible to kill or maim in a given space of time. Assault is nothing to do with number of people.

Meanwhile, whilst I agree that automatic weapons increas the rate of delivery of bullets, it does nothing to prevent school attacks that triggered (pun not intended) this particular thread.

Innocent Bystander posted:

No-one has yet answered my questions below. People, particularly perhaps Americans who live with the gun culture may think them naive, but they are genuine questions 

Innocent Bystander posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

I apologise for my ignorance, but could you please clarify when a gun designed for shooting people becomes an “assault weapon”?

I should have asked, and what makes the distinction, other than an arbitrary specification for parameters such as rate of fire or kinetic energy of fire, unless the latter cut off is that below which death or serious injury is unlikely?

And:

Innocent Bystander posted:

And if there is an explanation, explain how with free availability of guns other than fully automatic weapons means that removing the latter from ready availability will stop people entering schools and murdering or maiming numerous students if that is what they desire to do?

Any takers? 

I did so above; repeated here...

Anything in the class of weapons derived (directly or indirectly) from the German StG 44.

Huge posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

No-one has yet answered my questions below. People, particularly perhaps Americans who live with the gun culture may think them naive, but they are genuine questions 

Innocent Bystander posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

I apologise for my ignorance, but could you please clarify when a gun designed for shooting people becomes an “assault weapon”?

I should have asked, and what makes the distinction, other than an arbitrary specification for parameters such as rate of fire or kinetic energy of fire, unless the latter cut off is that below which death or serious injury is unlikely?

And:

Innocent Bystander posted:

And if there is an explanation, explain how with free availability of guns other than fully automatic weapons means that removing the latter from ready availability will stop people entering schools and murdering or maiming numerous students if that is what they desire to do?

Any takers? 

I did so above; repeated here...

Anything in the class of weapons derived (directly or indirectly) from the German StG 44.

That, as far as I can see, is a completely arbitrary definition, simply being based on a particular product someone has designed. I did clarify that the partnering question is what makes it the definition? Or rather, what makes it an appropriate definition for “assault”,  any more than, say, a definition based on the energy imparted to the projectile, perhaps combined with the type of projectile? I suggest that the latter would be far more appropriate, particularly if the cutoff is set below the energy likely to be fatal or to cause grave injury from beyond arm’s length.

That is the first weapon in the world classified as an 'Assault' weapon, in fact the very name 'Assault ' derives from the St part of the designation StG - the St stands for Sturm, the German for 'to storm' (or 'assault') a position.

The AK47 is a direct descendent of the StG 44.  If you want to know the rest of the story look up the history of the StG 44, it's well documented.

Max_B posted:

I had no idea that so many of you were experts on guns, rifles, assault weapons. 

M.

I can proudly say that I am NOT an expert on weapons, "assault" rifles or otherwise.

Huge posted:

That is the first weapon in the world classified as an 'Assault' weapon, in fact the very name 'Assault ' derives from the St part of the designation StG - the St stands for Sturm, the German for 'to storm' (or 'assault') a position.

The AK47 is a direct descendent of the StG 44.  If you want to know the rest of the story look up the history of the StG 44, it's well documented.

You are missing the point, deliberately or otherwise. Yes, that was possibly the first weapon defined in military terms as an assault rifle, but all firearms are weapons of assault. The military designation of assault rifle is one that is light and portable yet still able to deliver a high volume of fire with reasonable accuracy at combat ranges. That final point is significant: combat. Attacking a school is not military combat, indeed it is not combat at all because it is one-sided: it is simply attack. That is where the use of arbitrary distinctions between different types of firearm are just that, arbitrary, and stupid.

Yes, removing the most automatic or rapid firing of weapons from would-be attackers would reduce the extent of carnage they can produce, and I agree is better than nothing - but only marginally so, and does nothing to stop someone who is intent on entering a school and gunning down dozens of people. 

So if there really is a genuine desire to stop such attacks then options are limited, and purely banning “assault rifles” from availability to the general public is not one of them: 1) Prevent people having easy access to guns, of all types. Or 2) make schools into fortresses, with external security patrols and permanent airport style security on entrances. Or 3) have a sufficient number of armed marshals on permanent duty to provide visible and effective coverage throughout the school (with frequent training programmes to keep them alert and interested - and psychological checks to ensure they can’t be made to turn on the students given the stresses of being in classrooms all day every day with all that students may present). Or 4) arm all students with automatic weapons for self defence. 

If 4) is considered unacceptable as an option, consider why, and consider in what way that is worse than allowing the public at large, including those with undiagnosed psychological disorders, have access to guns. 

Of course, Brice Woodhouse’s answer is best, but probably less realistically possible, certainly in the short term.

Max_B posted:

I had no idea that so many of you were experts on guns, rifles, assault weapons. This, and the rising target of the topics about gear from a financial perspective are making me lose any pleasure and will to go on taking part. With all respect for anyone's hobbies and toys. Lately there seems to be nothing else than 552s and killing machines. It's rather depressing.

M.

I too hanker for the good old days of the forum (last year) when we had the much loved (by me anyway) 'dog shit' thread in the Padded Cell. I also remember with great fondness, albeit  a few years ago now, when the topic for discussion was when a chap had received his Powerline with a dent in the tin.

thebigfredc posted:

...I also remember with great fondness, albeit  a few years ago now, when the topic for discussion was when a chap had received his Powerline with a dent in the tin.

The repercussions of that can still be felt throughout the factory...

Richard Dane posted:

thebigfredc posted:

...I also remember with great fondness, albeit  a few years ago now, when the topic for discussion was when a chap had received his Powerline with a dent in the tin.

The repercussions of that can still be felt throughout the factory...

Should that say the repercussions of that can can still be felt throughout the factory?

Innocent Bystander posted:

You are missing the point, deliberately or otherwise.

I answered your question; nothing more nothing less.

Sorry if I appear blunt or resistant or offensive in any way, it's not intended, but at the moment I can't tell - I'm trying to cope with the CNS toxicity side effects of a local anaesthetic yesterday.  I've now recovered just enough to become aware of the impairment.

Huge posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

You are missing the point, deliberately or otherwise.

I answered your question; nothing more nothing less.

I'm not sure Huge is missing the point ... I think the point is that the distinction is somewhat arbitrary.  

The main defining characteristic that makes "assault weapons" a target for bans is that (a) they shoot somewhat indiscriminately and with little time for pause and reload and (b) they are a very visible, quite well defined, gun type which even those who support the right to hold arms (especially if they are more conservative in those views) can see little legitimate purpose in owning and would perhaps support the banning of.

I do completely support your point [@mention:41551091830475636] that all guns are essentially "weapons of assault" and that all are capable of killing and maiming indiscriminately in the hands of someone with intent to do so. 

Ardbeg10y posted:

Bad food is still a much bigger killer than weapons.

True - probably.

Irrelevant - definitely.