Did everyone hear this? A student killed 30 people in two hours, the time spread was 3 hours and no one was warned in classes.
http://www.volunteertv.com/news/headlines/7045577.html
Printable View
Did everyone hear this? A student killed 30 people in two hours, the time spread was 3 hours and no one was warned in classes.
http://www.volunteertv.com/news/headlines/7045577.html
I go to school there. Luckily I wasn't on campus.
People were warned.Quote:
and no one was warned in classes.
The final death toll was 33 including the gunman :(. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070416/..._tech_shooting
****.Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
I was on campus in august when the inmate escaped from prison and shot a couple of cops on the trail above us.... and I thought that was scary!
Really? The news is reporting that they weren't but I never entirely trust what I read.Quote:
People were warned.
One thing I'm not clear on, was this guy a student at the college or did he come in from outside?
Clearly shows that guns shouldnt be allowed for any reason, anywhere.
hey the constitution gives us the right to defend ourselves.
Not at Virginia Tech it doesn't.
Not to be disrespectful, but defend yourself against what? Another person with a gun? Thats just crazy, use guns to fight guns. Damn that crazy constitution, how many school massacres does it take to figure out something is wrong with it?Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
It's the FPS thing. It's causing depressed people to become desensitized to shooting people, so game or real life, they just don't feel anything from killing.
You can't blame games. If anything is a factor to the desensitizion of people, then it's movies that realistically depict people being killed and/or dismembered.Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
Well, that too. But the games don't help.
Well, I'm not sure about it now. I heard from someone that the classes were locked down until 1pm, but apparently it was only on that one side and the warning to everyone else came like 2 hours after the first shooting (I heard that was by email:sick:).Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I was 3.5 hours away when it happened, so I am in the dark as everyone else except for a phone call or two. Maybe in a few days I can get more info.
YES! Defend yourself against a gun. This guy was not a US citizen and was carrying an illegal weapon. If someone there was legally packin it would have been over in 10 seconds. If you don't want to carry a gun, don't, but don't take away my rights. How many school massacres does it take to show that taking away a parents right to punish their children by morons like you who live in fantasy land is the problem?Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
If some were warned but not others then it really does sound like a monumental cock up (because it implies the college know that warning were needed but didn't fully act on it).Quote:
apparently it was only on that one side and the warning to everyone else came like 2 hours after the first shooting
I hope nobody you know was hurt. It's got to be seriously scary to be that closely attached to such an event.
I don't think you can blame computer games (unless you're going to start blaming kids playing soldiers in playgrounds) and I also don't think you can blame relaxed gun laws (Canada's are MUCH tighter and their rate of gun crime per capita is comparable.) I don't consider myself anwhere near informed enough about American society to offer an opinion on what the root problems actually are but I suspect they're alot more complex that the single issue causes that will no doubt be touted in the coming weeks.
What the hell do gun laws have to do with anything? He shot them wit a 22 automatic and a 9mm glock. Both of them had the serial numbers filed off and he was not a citzen so he couldn't have a permit to carry. He was already in violation of every gun law In the US, do you think adding more laws that he wouldn't have followed in the first place would help? All you are doing is making it harder for law abiding citzens to defend themselvs against these arsehats.
Are you calling me a moron? I was just trying to point out that it must be a thousand times easier to get hold of guns in the US than other countries. I have never even seen a real gun except on television in my entire life.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
There has been plenty of school shootings in the US in the news the past couple of years, whilst Sweden (I take sweden as an example of course, since its the country I know best) has had 0, and armed robbery is rare.
I didnt really get the part about punishment though..
Getting ahold of a gun and legally getting ahold of a gun are two different things. Given the nature of American justice, a known crime lord could get ahold of anything he wanted, legally if he was smart. He would have been covering his tracks at every turn and made it impossible to trace anything back to him. It's been done before. So all that needs to happen is he decides he wants a bank robbed... legally, the gun dealers can't deny his request because as far as the law is concerned, he's clean... but all he has to do is hand off the gun and a bunch of ammo to some illegal immigrant who needs the money, and presto. You have yourself an illegal firearms holder, who had absolutely no difficulty getting ahold of what he needed.
Yes, you are commenting on a situation you know nothing about. That is being a moron. Don't get upset about, I'm a moron from time to time as well. It is easy to get a gun in the us if You have no criminal record, pass all of the background checks and can carry one for personal defense if you are approved to carry one by the local sherrif or the state police. It is even eaiser to get one if you are a criminal. Just head down to the local Crack head block, and flash some cash. Making guns illegal will make it impossible for the former only. There is no way you're going to stop illegal guns from coming into the US. Just like you're not going to stop, Cocaine, Heroin, Weed, Fastfood workers and lawn care professionals from getting here illegally. This is not Sweeden. We have a helluva lot bigger border and even more organized crime.Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
I bring up punishment to address the normal school shootings here. In my highschool, there was a few weeks of the year that damn near everyone had a rifel or shotgun with ammo in the trunk of their car. It was called deer season and no one ever shot anyone. It might have had something to do with the fact that our parents were allowed to put the fear of god and dismemberment into us.
Dude you've been watching way too much TV.Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
I cant belive what Im hearing, alright its your country Im gonna stay out of your business and this thread for that matter. Just remember when you walk around loving your "freedom to carry guns" that countless of innocent young lifes died because of this "fantastic freedom" (Yeah he had illegal guns, but the victims never felt the difference now did they?)
Dont bother replying to this post, as I wont look here again.
I don't even watch TV anymore... but where do you think all of it comes from? There are places where someone with a brain can pull off just that. It's not just in the movies. It's out there. I'm not saying it's the reason this particular instance happened, it's likely not. But it is a probable reason for a lot of other crimes that people pass off as "random".Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Whatever, cry like a little girl if you'd like. All I know is if that dipshet ever tried shooting me with an "Illegal" weapon, he will promply be choking on slugs from my "Fantastic Freedom".Quote:
Originally Posted by Atheist
Good for ya. That stuff will rot your brain. The majority of these guns are coming from home robberies. I've posted here before that guns that are unattended should be required to be in a safe with a trigger and bolt lock attached when not under direct control of the owner. The problem with your scenario is that semi automatic and handguns need to be registered and if somoeone is purchasing enough guns to be profitable they will get redflagged. There's no money in it. Stolen weapons is where the cash is.Quote:
Originally Posted by timeshifter
I'm pretty sure the Middle Eastern foreign exchange students are relieved the shooter is a South Korean.
gun laws dont generally stop gun violence .. it may make it harder for some kid to get hold of a gun, but down here guns are typically illegal (6 months in prison per bullet, etc, and shotguns licensed for pigeon shooting are the only legal guns) yet all the criminals have hand and machine guns, and shooting crimes are out of control.
Well - just to add to the debate about gun laws. They don't appear to make a difference one way or another. Recent studies have shown this - detrimental to opposing arguments of both the NRA AND the anti-gun lobby.
As Master stated, before 1991, millions of rural US teenagers had shotguns and rifles in their cars in US school parking lots - mostly during hunting season - since the dawn of the country.
Before Columbine in 1999, school shootings were unheard of. I wish I could point at the fact that guns are the cause. But they definitely aren't. As of 1997 (1991 law was found unconstitutional), US federal law prohibits anyone from carrying a weapon within 1000 feet of any school. Which is perhaps why schools have now seen a dramatic increase in school shootings. But I wouldn't really promote that as a cause either.
Still, the odds of being shot at a school in the US is less than 1 in a million statistically - and of course, as you can see on BBC news 'Have Your Say', all these tragedies end up being is political fire for the opposing liberal and conservative minds.
Hmm funny that's just around the time that parents started getting arrested for spanking their kids. Or video games replaced the girl next door as the preferred choice of babysitter. I wonder if those kids at columbine would have gone off the deep end if their dads had stomped a mudhole in their arse the first second they ever joked about using a gun on another hu man. Or even better If the parents of the kids who abused these to kids to the point of murder actually took a leather belt to their asss for bullying their weaker peers.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
to the masses
Brilliant! all of you pussified morons go ahed and blame an inanimate object for the problems you created by not having the ballz to raise your kids. Last time I heard guns can't aim and pull the trigger themselvs.
ok i am not really up on the details, but is this a summary of the issue?
on the one hand we have the issue of personal defense to be used against drug dealers and robbers and we can't wait for 30 minutes for the police to arrive and there is a machine gun in our face ready to kill us just for a couple of hundred dollars for their next hit.
on the other hand is the issue of guns being used as a terrorist weapon against kids in schools or by postal workers on psychiatric drugs, keeping in mind that baseball bats, kitchen knifes, cars, martial arts, pesticides, electricity, fire, large trucks, lawn fertilizer and even planes can all be used to kill multiple sometimes thousands of people.
round here anyone can just walk in a store and buy as many machetes as they like, and its not illegal to carry around .. and yep pestisides, bleach, etc, are also dangerous for real.Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
No he won't, cause you'd be dead.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
What really pisses me off is cowboys who think that having a gun is some kind of magic shield. The reason it pisses me off so much is because of all the hiking. People keep asking me whether or not I carry a gun. NO! They weigh far too much, and I have come plenty close to dying from several different things, none of which would have been improved by having a gun.
You have to consider the circumstances in which any tool would be useful. If some bad guy decides to shoot you, having a gun won't save you unless he gives you time to get it, draw it, cock it, and point it. Now the only way that will happen is if you happen to have the gun with you at all times. Do you keep one in the spout, too? Or will you have to cock it first? Will the bad guy (or mountain lion) let you go get it from your bag?
Thirty people died in the second event, and two in the first event. You can bet your bottom dollar that if you were either of the first two, you would have died, because you never had the time to get to a gun. If you were among the thirty, you'd have to analyze the map to figure out whether you would have had a chance if you had been packing.
Don't rely on a gun. It isn't some kind of magic talisman. It's a tool, nothing more, and in this case it is a tool you almost certainly wouldn't have had a chance to use unless you were already a paranoid nutcase to begin with. I won't carry a gun hiking because the only way it could possibly help would be if I kept it on my person, and loaded, at all times (and frankly, that probably wouldn't help either, unless it was a cannon). Since hypothermia, falling, falling objects, and bad judgement are all FAR more likely threats, I would prefer to dedicate the weight of a gun towards preventions for those things if I was inclined to add that much weight.
Now, you might think that criminals would be deterred if they thought you might have a gun.....Yeah...those folks are notable for their carefully considered actions. This guy shot himself. He INTENDED to die. Perhaps he wasn't too worried about being killed.
Everybody I work with is a hunter. I'm the only one who doesn't have a gun, and that's because I would rather buy meat shrink wrapped. Yeah, I know where it comes from, but why would I want to go through all that hassle? I'm not opposed to guns, I'm opposed to people who think that a gun will solve their problems. Statistically, gun owners are considerably more likely to die of gunshot wounds than non gun owners. Of course, there could be all kinds of auto correlation going on in that statistic, but that's an indication of how safe guns make you.
By the way, a few years back, Virginia was THE place to buy guns. It was the biggest source for weapons used in crime on the whole east coast. I don't know if that has changed since then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by learning c
Exactly! If the guns in your face, the window of opportunity has already closed. Since the other guy will always make the first move, since they are the one with bad intent, the opportunity is theirs to lose.
so a fire can kill hundreds and destroy millions of dollars of property, do we ban matches?
Why would I be dead? You're correct that in a confrontation I may get it first and blindsided for that matter. It takes me 1.3 seconds to draw aim and shoot effectivly enought to hit a soda can @ 25 feet. There are a dozen different ways I could show you to buy that 1.3 seconds without getting shot. Go back to your anti-gun website and cut and paste some more BS. You are correct that quite a few people feel "safe" carrying a weapon when they should not. Being able to effectivley use one takes thousands of hours of practice and training. Most don't have the time, motivation or the finances to make it happen. I do and I have and you have absolutly no right to take away my right to level the playing field.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Bullsheit! That is the exact same attitude that these pieces of krap feed off of. I'll tell you what. Grow a pair. There were how many students in that room. I don't know the exact count but there were more people there than the capacity of bullets in those guns. That attitude got 33 people killed and no one charged that guy and stopped him. If you're going to die might as well go out swinging than curled up in a ball with krap in your drawers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
In January of 2006 Virginia passed a law that made it illegal for anyone to process or carry a gun anywhere near a school, include colleges and university’s. It was heralded as a landmark piece of legislation that would make schools safer. Well it looks as if the only success of this legislation seems to be is giving a maniac free reign on a college campus without having to worry about being interrupted while he was on a killing spree.
A short time ago there was an incident in a mall in which a young man decided he will go kill some people, because there was an off duty policeman carrying a gun in that mall this man was stopped before he could kill a great many more people. There have been other incidents I remember where a person with a gun out in society prevented a greater loss of life from occurring.
While you might be right, guns in the hands of people who do not know how to use them or do not understand that if you draw your weapon you better be prepared to kill someone are totally useless and perhaps a danger to themselves and everyone else. However those people who are properly trained and understand what it means to carry a gun can and do save lives every day by using a firearm. You do not have to be a police officer or ex-military to be properly trained in the use of a weapon. It’s just a matter of taking the time to get trained in the proper use of a firearm.
I am so tired of every time there is some kind of mass shooting the anti-gun people come crawling out of the woodwork to try and limit the Constitutional right of Americans.
X
Well, Virigina certainly isn't the model of responsible gun law enactment. And the NRA backed laws limit the rights of Virigian citizens on how they wish to govern their own community.
http://nraila.com/CurrentLegislation...aspx?ID=1068-L
They (the NRA) have taken gun control out of the hands of local people and made it illegal for local municipalities to enact their own guns laws. Taking away the power to legislate your own community is a fringe on freedom in my book.
They also made it impossible for local communities to bring forth a lawsuit against gun manufactuers. How restricing an entity that can sue another entity is even constitutional - I don't know, but if the law was legally challenged, would certainly be struck down. No other entity in any industry has such protection. That law certainly destroys a greater liberty to favor the priviledged few.
They removed the one-handgun-per-month purchase limit. Sure, some collectors will mildly benefit from that lifted restriction, but it only serves to benefit people who buy guns legally only to sell that privately where there are no restrictions.
"B 227, sponsored by Senator Ken Cuccinelli, eliminates the provision that allowed certain counties to require a permit to purchase a handgun, and requires that any records kept by the counties of these purchases be destroyed."
Great, in the case of the guy who shot 33 people this last week, the county would never know where he purchased the weapon. They would have to obtain that from the State.
The theme here is centralizing power is never a good idea. It broadens the reach of someone's idea of how to govern and legislate over all areas. The Republican party use to be the frontrunner on decentralization. Now, with the NRA (who have an agenda rather distant from most gun owners) lining the politician's pockets - Virginians can be ensured that their voice counts for far less on how to govern their communities.
There are training drills that help you get an edge on this. One I did in firearms training was to draw my pistol from a gym bag and shoot 3 close range targets accurately within seconds. Of course, continuous training is needed to maintain this edge. I'm not sure if I could pull this off today, 25 years later.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Training is also needed to shoot to kill without being hesitant. Generally this kind of training is done only fully in military and police programs although some argue that 1st person shooter games provide the same kind of mental training. Without this training, most people will hesitate unless they're insane or under great stress.
Proper training also makes a huge difference in safely handling firearms. Unfortunately, too many people skip this crucial step. Accidental firearm injury stats drop to a very low percentage when untrained or poorly trained cases are removed.
Criminals, meaning relatively sane criminals, will avoid situations where they might encounter an armed person and will choose easier, unarmed, targets unless they consider the armed target is worth the risk. Insane people, like the VT shooter, usually don't make such distinctions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
There was no serial number. It is probably untraceable unless they can acid dip it out. I'll guarentee it was a stolen gun sold to him by an ocean city or VA Beach gangsta and wouldn't be suprised one bit if they trace the bore on it and find out it was used in other shootings. No gangsta is going to dump a filed 9 mm glock unless it is broken or "dirty".Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
The serial number would help identify it, but a receipt for the purchase of the weapon only a month ago from Roanoke Firearms was conclusive enough.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vtech.shooting/
But the bigger question is why is the law needed? What benefit to your average gun owner does that obtain? Only that you don't need to be aware of special considerations of traveling from one county to the next with a firearm. Let me ask you - how many times have you traveled across your State with a concealed firearm (other than a hunting rifle of course)?
Previously, you could at least pick which city/county you felt more comfortable living based on its laws. Now, its one way or the highway out of
State.
New York State has concealed weapon laws but New York City places its own restrictions on guns. Is New York City violating New York State law? I don't know. But the reason stems from the fact that there are hordes of people in a small area and having willy nilly gun control does in fact harm the city. The laws are not necessarily anti-gun, but they are more strict on who can obtain a legal permit, who can sell, and what types of weapons can be carried or purchased. Those laws make sense for the City itself and the people of that city should have the right to make those laws.
The Virginia State Congress on the other hand has been bought and paid for by the NRA. The fact that only 2% of Virginians have gun permits may shed light on how the NRA special interest lobbies overshadow citizens interests.
The nitwits at the NRA have also unwittingly made it much easier for anti-gun legislation to effect every community just as easily - since it now all happens at the State level.
Again, I'll just clarify I'm against such centralization of power.
As far as guns, I don't own any myself - but have family members who do. None of them have any assault rifles - and I fail to understand why a small percentage of gun owners feel outraged when some legislation tries to minimize the damage from a weapon that can cause mass devestation. The federal ban on assault weapons expired - which is silly for the fact that why make laws which expire at a predetermined time? But the NRA has its own agenda cloaked in the fear campaign it promotes to the average gun owner - and Viriginia State law blankets the communities with the NRA wishes.
'Sounds like someone has a case of the Mondays'
So He ground the serial number off of his own gun that he used in a murder suicide? That makes no sense at all. Sounds like BS to me. I am deeply disturbed that a non US citizen can purchase a firearm in the US. That is Bullsheit. The background checks are not international. I was not aware that that was possible.Quote:
The serial number would help identify it, but a receipt for the purchase of the weapon only a month ago from Roanoke Firearms was conclusive enough.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/17/vtech.shooting/
But the bigger question is why is the law needed? What benefit to your average gun owner does that obtain? Only that you don't need to be aware of special considerations of traveling from one county to the next with a firearm. Let me ask you - how many times have you traveled across your State with a concealed firearm (other than a hunting rifle of course)?
I do a lot of alpine hiking and fishing in bear, tweaker, and cougar country which happens to be across the state.
Sure, but you don't (hopefully) use a handgun - you use a rifle. Which was always excluded as long as it was secured in a trunk when not in use.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
But the NRA has grown a big head and intentionally interferes with municipalities with high population densities attempting to control the number of handguns in their borders.
That's nothing to do with rifles or hunter's rights - that's about making more money for the gun manufacturers.
Don't be an arse MB, I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti idiot who thinks that they can "whip it out and save the day". I totally agree that they could have stopped this guy, even without guns. People who have not been under fire tend not to react with careful thought in those situations. People who have been under fire tend not to react with careful thought in those situations, either.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
My point was that a gun isn't a talisman. Anybody imagining themselves as the hero is fooling themselves. You might....you might not. I see Xanith pointed out some anecdote about a case where a person with a gun saved somebody. How hard would I have to look to find a case where somebody with a gun accidentally shot somebody (look no further than the White House). Argument by anecdote is done only as an appeal to emotion, and directly contrary to reason.
If you want to consider whether people should be wandering around campuses armed, you can't base the decision off some story about somebody saving a life with a gun, or off a story about an accidental shooting. You have to factor in the probabiltiy of a gun helping the situation against the probability of a gun harming a situation. The incidence of gun violence on college campuses is mighty rare. Even the FBI finds that college shooters are quite different from HS shooters. Not the same profile.
So now we have one incident of a mass killing on a college campus. The probabiltiy of such and occurence can be calculated, as it has happened only two or three times in the last several decades (when was that clock tower shooter? 60's?). The toll of killed and injured can be counted, and a risk can be calculated.
Next, calculate the incident of accidental shootings, crimes of passion, etc., and you can calculate a risk for having an armed campus.
Which is greater? Personally, I don't know. My gut feeling is that the incident of accidents is higher than the incidence of gun violence on campuses, but it isn't my field. This is known, though.
One thing that is odd is how strong a hold guns have on Americans. Everybody I work with owns some, nobody caries one, unless it's part of their job description (law enforcement). But boy, do people get fired up about them (not here, nobody even talks about it). You are VERY unlucky (in this country) if in the course of your entire life you find yourself in a situation where having a gun could save your life. On the other hand, you have a fair chance of finding yourself in a situation where knowing CPR could save a life. Yet I find people getting far more heated about carrying weapons than about CPR.
You weigh the risks you face in life, and we do so terribly, of course. People are afraid to fly, despite the statistics showing that they are more likely to be killed on the drive to the airport than they are in the plane. The same is true with guns. There is far more emotion than reason going into peoples positions on guns. You have to be a particular kind of person to carry one in most parts of this country. You either are unreasonably fearful of risks that are vanishingly small, or you want to strut. I won't carry one because I don't fit into either group. Might start carrying one of those defib machines in the truck, though. That and road flares. I've used a disturbing number of road flares in the last few years.
The problem with the "Assault Weapons" ban was that it was almost purely based on the cosmetics of the firearm. If it had a flash supressor, a hi-impact black plastic pistol grip, folding stock and generally looked like a scary weapon from a Schwarzenegger movie it was banned. If you did the same weapon with a nice figured walnut grip and stock and so forth it was OK. The only thing that in the ban that actually affected the performance of the rifle was the magazine size and this was easily bypassed by those who wanted to do it.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
He'd been in the US since he was 8. How much of a history do you think he had prior to that?Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
What's a tweaker?
As for bear and cougar, a handgun isn't going to help you much for cougar, they are ambush predators. As a general rule, nobody sees one before they feel it. As for a bear, you had best have a mighty big gun. People hunt black bears with hand guns, but they use only the larger caliber weapons. In most cases, if you shoot a bear, you HAVE to kill it, and they are notoriously tough to kill, even with large caliber weapons (griz are far tougher, of course, but black bears are plenty durable).
I walked across your state, too. If you are afraid of the animals out there, I guess you need to carry something to protect yourself. However, unless tweaker is another name for moose, you have failed to list the most deadly, nonhuman, animal you are likely to encounter in Washington state. I've only seen a couple cats, and every bear I ever saw was moving away as fast as its legs could carry it, but moose have put me in situations that made me sweat on numerous occasions. Lots of us backcountry folks can trade stories of being treed, chased, threatened, etc, by moose. Those who get trampled don't generally tell the story.
I find that an interesting comment in face of the fact the NRA chose it as their #1 priority to NOT reinstitute that ban in 2004. If it was purely cosmetic, then why the fuss from the NRA?Quote:
Originally Posted by bgmacaw
I understand the gun manufacturing industry reacted to the result of the tobacco industry's day in court. But to actively exclude themselves from lawsuits that may prove their negligence is outrageous. Further, its unprecedented and pompous.
What of the school districts in the country that have been sued in civil courts over negligence - and the public taxpayer money that has been spent on awards. I find it rather disgusting how one manufacturing industry can institute a federal law excluding themselves, yet State legislators and federal congressmen cannot apply that protection to government run schools.
The article I read yesterday said a student Visa. I was going off of that. Apparently the article I read was incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Pic attached, They are a widespread fierce rhodent known for unpredictable actos of violence and can be quite deadly.Quote:
What's a tweaker?
I used to hunt black bear with a 44 Magnum S&W when legal to do so. Rifles are difficult control/carry in heavy brush. I am quite accurate with it and have dropped every bear I have ever shot with one round. And before the anti hunting crowd jumps on me too, I don't hunt any more with a firearm.Quote:
As for bear and cougar, a handgun isn't going to help you much for cougar, they are ambush predators. As a general rule, nobody sees one before they feel it. As for a bear, you had best have a mighty big gun. People hunt black bears with hand guns, but they use only the larger caliber weapons. In most cases, if you shoot a bear, you HAVE to kill it, and they are notoriously tough to kill, even with large caliber weapons (griz are far tougher, of course, but black bears are plenty durable).
I am not afraid of animals. I respect them, their capabilities, and their territory. Big Bull moose are pretty scarce around here these days and I avoid their stomping ground during the rutt. 99% of the bear I've seen over the years did exactly as you said. I've also seen what was left of a guy who walked across a path inbetween a sow and her cubs. It was not pretty. I have been cornered by a Black Bear once, fortunatly for me she was a cubless he and was just being curious. Yes cougars suck! I was fly fishing an alpine stream and walked up on one laying on a gravel bar. She was not happy. I was paranoid for the rest of the 1 1/2 day hike after seeing those teeth and claws.Quote:
I walked across your state, too. If you are afraid of the animals out there, I guess you need to carry something to protect yourself. However, unless tweaker is another name for moose, you have failed to list the most deadly, nonhuman, animal you are likely to encounter in Washington state. I've only seen a couple cats, and every bear I ever saw was moving away as fast as its legs could carry it, but moose have put me in situations that made me sweat on numerous occasions. Lots of us backcountry folks can trade stories of being treed, chased, threatened, etc, by moose. Those who get trampled don't generally tell the story.
now, back to tweakers. If you have hiked across our state I am damn suprised you've seen a bull and never seen one of these vile creatures. They are all over the place, especially along remote rivers and lakes. They have a nasty habit of robbing and or killing hikers.
http://www.drugfree.org/Portal/DrugI...ces/index.html
Hey, would you expect anything less? :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Ok, I do know tweakers, but I have had the good fortune not to encounter any. You are right that they are the most dangerous animal out there.
I never did see a moose in WA, but had some really bizarre encounters with them last summer in ID, as well as past years. I have heard that the bull in rut is more overrated than dangerous. Not that I'd mess with one, but it is the cow and calf that is most dangerous. Had a pair chage at me one time, but it turns out they were just running away from something else, and once they saw me, they turned aside....but I was looking for a tree. Half a ton of moose will turn you into jam, and there's not much you can do about it.
Most of my friends seem to have switched to bow hunting for everything. Is that what you use?
The thing that keeps me somewhat safer out there is the fact that I am the size of the average NFL linebacker (not lineman, though if my foot doesn't get better, I'll be there). I had some featherweight teenager waving a gun at me and talking trash. Since I was on my way to the store, and am not a particularly angry type, I just walked away, but I was thinking that he wouldn't be so bold if he wasn't carrying the hardware. Guns might protect some people, but there is also a class of people who think it makes them tough. Kind of true in his case, I suppose. I wasn't looking for a fight anyways, but his having a gun did make up for the fact that he was a 120lb teenage tweaker (as you would say).
Well, yeah. That was kind of low for you. I can understand that you might misunderstand the reason for my position, but I am kind of the "death before dishonor" type. I've always wondered what happened in cases like that, or Columbine. Most shootings are over so fast that there really isn't time to do much of anything, but those two were relatively slow. You've GOT to fight back. Everything we know shows that ultimately you have to charge the guns. There might be some tactical considerations as to how you go about it, but if your basic instinct is to turn into the attack, you can't be criticized too much. People can find situations where inaction is the right course, but they are relatively rare, and should only be taken deliberately. If you only have time to react, it should be to retreat or attack, and either one promptly and without hesitation.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
Apparently you didn’t read (understand) my post. I didn’t just post some isolated story about how guns can save lives, guns save lives every single day. Someone that is trained in the use of a firearm can save lives and it doesn’t have to be a police officer or someone that is ex-military. I agreed with you and stated that those who are not trained and don’t know how to use a gun can be a danger not only to himself/herself but to others. Not sure how that is emotional, I thought it was a lucid point that was fairly easy to understand.Quote:
My point was that a gun isn't a talisman. Anybody imagining themselves as the hero is fooling themselves. You might....you might not. I see Xanith pointed out some anecdote about a case where a person with a gun saved somebody. How hard would I have to look to find a case where somebody with a gun accidentally shot somebody (look no further than the White House). Argument by anecdote is done only as an appeal to emotion, and directly contrary to reason.
X
Well at least we know now what happens when you have a gun free zone. I’m not advocating that students should be allowed to carry weapons around campus but maybe allowing professors who are well trained law abiding members of society should be allowed to carry a weapon not only to defend themselves but their students.Quote:
Next, calculate the incident of accidental shootings, crimes of passion, etc., and you can calculate a risk for having an armed campus.
X
Sorry X, you are right, I didn't read your post very carefully, just noticed the anecdote that lead it, and was responding mostly to MB. I work for an enforcement agency, so I'm not going to dispute that guns can be useful, and can save lives. I think the "every day" part is an exageration that is only true if you look at the country at large. Once you do that, you also need to look at the rate of accidents in the country at large. These accidents happen among well trained individuals, as well as casual users. As an amusing anecdote about that, our hunting safety instructor managed to shoot a hole through the side of his own truck when he made a very small mistake, but I don't have time for the whole story. Accidents happen, even among professionals. You have to weigh the whole account before you decide the balance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xanith
As for your second post, you must be mad. We STRONGLY advocate that people keep guns secured in gun safes, largely because they are theft magnets to anybody who breaks into your house. So which model do you favor: The prof leaves a gun in whichever classroom he/she is occupying, or the prof carries one with him/her at all times?
I think we went over this last time. I'm no hero and I'm only looking to protect me and mine. Outlawing guns isn't going to solve anything. Maybe we should do something usefull like forcing people who buy guns to go through training, or provide proof of advanced training. Also Require all guns to be locked and rendered unuseable when not in control of the owner. That doesn't mean a professor has to carry all the time or lock it in a classroom. It's as simple as removing the bolt from a weapon and sticking it in your pocket, or calling the state cops and getting a trigger lock.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Yes, I use a compound bow for all of the hunting I do. But, I am almost accurate enough with a sightless recurve to shelf the compound and start shooting a wood bow. probably a few thousand more arrows and I'll be on par with what I can do with my compound. I'd really like to learn to make my own recurve or longbow some day so I can at least say everything I hunt and fish with I built myself. Of course I don't really hunt much anymore. A stop at the local butcher is a lot eaiser than dragging a dead amimal over a mountain or three.
That it was a meaningless law that restricted the rights of law-abiding citizens while having no impact on criminal usage of firearms. The magazine size restriction wasn't cosmetic though and that was probably the biggest reason behind them fighting it.Quote:
Originally Posted by nemaroller
Basically, the law was based on a couple of high publicity incidents, one in California and one in Florida, involving bank hold-ups where police with their service pistols were outgunned by the perps. That plus the general fear of gangs in the early 90's. It was a law largely based on fear and ignorance which is never a good basis for a law (I refer you to the Patriot Act for another example of such a law).
I have lots of friends who ONLY eat meat they harvested. I've been curious as to whether it is a cost effective strategy (leaving out the enjoyment they get from it), and it appears to me that it is currently not strictly cost effective, but it is really hard to pin that down. We have some people who make their own long bows. I don't know if they use them, but they can make some dough off them, as they are very fine.Quote:
Originally Posted by MasterBlaster
As for guns, many states now require hunters to take a hunters education course before they get a liscense. This makes for a really funny situation: Technically, you have to take some training if you intend to use a gun for shooting anything other than humans. You don't need any training if the only purpose for the gun is to shoot humans.
Ok, that's flippant, but it is pretty much true out here. When people talk about self defense, they are generally talking about defense against other people, and no training is mandatory for that. Since you have to be both liscensed and trained to hunt, you are effectively liscencing a hunting gun.
I advocate that, since guns are intended to kill, either people or animals, you should have at least as much demonstation of competance as is required to drive a car. That's a mighty low standard: a cheap liscense and a simple test. However, even that standard is strongly opposed by the NRA, and most gun enthusiasts. Yet that low standard is already in place in many states for hunters. Thus my point: Only if you intend to shoot a human do you not have to have a liscense for a gun.
I heard on talk radio today the argument that he could have done more damage with a car driven through a crowd in less time.
The issue is certainly not gun control.
It's the lack of embracing the mental health issues that our population is suffering with.
@shaggy - I'm so envious that you do software to track fish...
I do software to track students :(
I think you would have lost track of that one.Quote:
Originally Posted by szlamany
So what do people think about NBC showing the footage. I've heard all sides, and can't form a solid opinion. Of course, there must have been a bunch of execs drooling over the scoop, but did showing that serve a valuable service to the public?