Talk of The Villages Florida

Talk of The Villages Florida (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/)
-   Current Events and News (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/current-events-news-541/)
-   -   Another mass shooting g (https://www.talkofthevillages.com/forums/current-events-news-541/another-mass-shooting-g-332298/)

MDLNB 05-28-2022 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2100164)
The Secret Service is there to protect whoever they're charged with protecting. If the threat is removed (no firearms allowed) then they don't need the Secret Service there. If they need the Secret Service there, it's because it's that presumption of safety doesn't exist.

If everyone was allowed to carry at the Convention, they wouldn't need the secret service, would they?

Because ALL OF THOSE GOOD GUYS would be protecting each other from that one bad guy.

But if the secret service is needed afterall, then the above sentence is untrue.


That doesn't make sense. Are you saying that ALL NRA members or attendees are "good guys?" You don't know how the SS guys work? You don't know their policies or SOP? Just kidding, I know you were just being facetious. :icon_wink:

MDLNB 05-28-2022 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lottoguy (Post 2100100)
Locking school doors could be asking for more trouble. What if a fire starts? Nut jobs are saying "harden the schools and have one entrance and one exit". What happens if there is a fire?


Fire exits are locked to those on the outside. In case of emergency, you push the lever and the door opens. Emergency services have the ability to access the entrances also. However, a remote control from the office can be utilized if they wish to lock and unlock doors by use of a button. Many schools in the inner cities lock all doors to keep the drug pushers out during school session.

jimjamuser 05-28-2022 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Woodbear (Post 2099933)
It is painful to read how uneducated some are when it comes to guns. A new AR platform ban is a joke. Below is 2 pictures of the SAME firearm. One has a wood stock and the other is scary black. They both shoot the same round. They both can change their magazine capacity. They are equally effective at doing their job. So what is an AR.......a normal gun in a costume!

Good post and good picture. That IS true, both guns have an equal semi-auto ACTION and both have about the same POTENTIAL to kill humans. That is why Australia encouraged their civilians to use bolt-action rifles INSTEAD of semi-auto actions and brought their MASS-murders down to about zero. The US should look to the Australians as an example of eliminating MASS-MURDER, while still allowing all their law-abiding citizens to own guns for legal purposes.
.........We KNOW that we have a problem. Other countries SOLVED the problem. Their children do NOT have the same FEAR when entering their schools as US children do. WE OWE it to the children to do the RIGHT thing for a change.

Sarah_W 05-28-2022 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2100001)
Please3 explain this rationale.

Guns make us safe. More gun make us safer, Gun free zones are worthless because makes it easier to kill us.

Trump will be there, so it is too hard to keep him safe unless we ban guns. What could be safer for Trump than a room full of ardent supporters packing?

The hypocrisy is blatant. Everyday in every way we are told we need more guns to make us safer, but Trump needs more guns to keep him safer from his own supporters?

I don't think it is hypocrisy. The NRA as well as the attendees are not against guns being at the convention. I've been to NRA conventions myself and had not problem carrying my handgun. It is the Secret Service who is dictating that no guns be present. That is the case at every single event that a person attends who they are charged to protect. Where any former President speaks, it will have to be gun free. As we can see from the recent headline where some Iraqi's were conspiring to kill George W. Bush. They don't have to be a sitting President to be at risk and the Secret Service will reduce as much risk as possible.

Trayderjoe 05-28-2022 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2100164)
The Secret Service is there to protect whoever they're charged with protecting. If the threat is removed (no firearms allowed) then they don't need the Secret Service there. If they need the Secret Service there, it's because it's that presumption of safety doesn't exist.

If everyone was allowed to carry at the Convention, they wouldn't need the secret service, would they?

Because ALL OF THOSE GOOD GUYS would be protecting each other from that one bad guy.

But if the secret service is needed afterall, then the above sentence is untrue.

Here is a link to the Secret Service website. It might help, but then again.....

jimjamuser 05-28-2022 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdulej (Post 2100010)
You're sort of making the original poster's point. A room full of people with guns means you've got something to worry about. A room full of people without guns, means you have a lot less to worry about. The NRA tries to spin it the other way round.

For me, I'd much rather be in a store or school or a church (not that you could drag me into one of those) full of people without guns.

Agreed! Good logic!

Sarah_W 05-28-2022 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MartinSE (Post 2100026)
See it is hard to solve something when you are looking in the wrong places. Mental health is a red herring being pushed by the parties with a vested interest. I can post links to dozens of studies by top psychologists in the world (but I wont because I have been given a vacation for posting too many links - spamming they called it). And they all come to the same conclusion - summarized by this:

Are All Mass Shooters Mentally Ill?

Here is the link, but I know most wont bother to read it, since it might disturb peoples world view. If you are interested in truth and not propaganda as so many claim - the take a look.

"They discovered that only 11% of all mass murderers (including shooters) and only 8% of mass shooters had a serious mental illness. They also found that mass shooters in the United States were more likely to have legal histories, use recreational drugs, abuse alcohol, and have histories of non-psychotic psychiatric or neurologic symptoms."

Let me repeat that, 8% of mass shooters have mental health problems associated with the shooting.

According to John Hopkins Medicine , 26% of Americans 18 and older have some form of diagnosable mental health.

Repeat that - 8% of shooters are mentally ill, 26% of the general population are mentally ill. Hmm.

So, there is an interesting anomaly here - MORE people that are NOT mass murders have some form of mental illness than the mass shooter. The shooters would seem to be "healthier". (that would be a false comparison, for those paying attention - since there are very few shooters so the sample size is very small.)

Mental Health Disorder Statistics | Johns Hopkins Medicine

According to other sources, 20% of the worlds population has mental health issues.

So, PLEASE, since you claim mental health explains mass shootings and school murders, PLEASE explain why the US is the ONLY country experiencing regular school shooting. Great Britain hasn't had one since 1996 with they banned most guns. Coincidence?

PLEASE explain WHY there are not MORE shootings since the general population has 3 times as much mental illness as the shooter population?

There, Did I repeat it enough times?

I won't wait for an answer, since EVERY single person I have asked, failed to respond with an answer. Typically if they answer at all they just deflect with "things are different here - yeah they are different. We have 400 million guns on circulation. And in this particular case virtually no requirements to buy a gun except a government ID, be 18, and breathing. (Oh and a pocket full of money)

I, for one, would not suggest that mental illness is representative of all mass shooters. There are more than one assignable cause for why someone would kill a group of people.

In no particular order here are some I can think of.

1. Mental illness
2. Hatred of a group of people (Race, Religion, and other characteristics)
3. Hatred or anger of a person within a group in attendance of an event
4. Copy cat killer
5. Political enemy
6. Genocide
7. Revenge

Taltarzac725 05-28-2022 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2100186)
I, for one, would not suggest that mental illness is representative of all mass shooters. There are more than one assignable cause for why someone would kill a group of people.

In no particular order here are some I can think of.

1. Mental illness
2. Hatred of a group of people (Race, Religion, and other characteristics)
3. Hatred or anger of a person within a group in attendance of an event
4. Copy cat killer
5. Political enemy
6. Genocide
7. Revenge

One of the Seven Deadly Sins is usually involved. And drugs and therapy can only do so much with mental illness especially if the patient stops taking the drugs. Seven deadly sins - Wikipedia

PugMom 05-28-2022 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jdulej (Post 2100045)
Not quite sure who you were addressing this to, but I'll toss in my 2 cents. IMO, there is one (and only one) reason why someone commits any sort of violent crime - because they are mentally unstable.

Why not, as a start, require anyone who wants to buy a gun to prove they are mentally stable. 99.9% would pass and go on their way with their shiny new killing machine. The .1 failures are just out of luck.

We don't seem to have any issues adding more and more restrictions to people's right to vote, this does not seem to add that much of a burden to the vast majority gun owner wannabes

it's such a good & simple idea that just may work! but we have to discuss private sales then. how would/should we handle that? thx!

jdulej 05-28-2022 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2100186)
I, for one, would not suggest that mental illness is representative of all mass shooters. There are more than one assignable cause for why someone would kill a group of people.

In no particular order here are some I can think of.

1. Mental illness
2. Hatred of a group of people (Race, Religion, and other characteristics)
3. Hatred or anger of a person within a group in attendance of an event
4. Copy cat killer
5. Political enemy
6. Genocide
7. Revenge

IMO, anyone who would actually kill others because of 2-7 above is mentally ill. The difference in the US is how easy it is for said person to act out their illness with mass killing weapons. The impact is orders of magnitude greater than someone who only has access to less destructive weapons, which is the case in the rest of the 1st world.
This may not be the technical definition of mentally ill, but it works for me - anyone who goes to the extreme of killing others for ANY reason (other than the immediate need for self-defense) has got a screw loose and should not be allowed to own a gun.
I gave up on any thought of actually banning guns a long time ago. I do think there is room to tighten rules around chains of ownership and liability - if good old uncle George gives little Jonny, who likes to torture animals, a gun for his birthday he shares liability for whatever Jonny does with it.

Taltarzac725 05-28-2022 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PugMom (Post 2100191)
it's such a good & simple idea that just may work! but we have to discuss private sales then. how would/should we handle that? thx!

My brother's wife's brother was a very studious man in India while a follower of some religious leader over there. His mentor died and he moved in with them here in the States and eventually got hooked on hot dogs and two pistols with a very high rate of fire. It was not until after he committed suicide that my brother found out just how crazy he had become when the police were looking over his things at his apartment. He thought that someone had taken over my brother and his wife and that they were not even human. My brother had thrown him out of their house a few years before he committed suicide because he refused to get rid of those pistols while living in their home. They had tried to get him help while they had him in their home but he always knew just what to say to avoid commitment into a mental health facility.

dewilson58 05-28-2022 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2100186)
I, for one, would not suggest that mental illness is representative of all mass shooters. There are more than one assignable cause for why someone would kill a group of people.

In no particular order here are some I can think of.

1. Mental illness
2. Hatred of a group of people (Race, Religion, and other characteristics)
3. Hatred or anger of a person within a group in attendance of an event
4. Copy cat killer
5. Political enemy
6. Genocide
7. Revenge

:ohdear::ohdear:

Doesn't everyone who murders have a mental illness?????....except "drug induced".

jdulej 05-28-2022 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 2100216)
:ohdear::ohdear:

Doesn't everyone who murders have a mental illness?????....except "drug induced".

Yes.

Taltarzac725 05-28-2022 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 2100216)
:ohdear::ohdear:

Doesn't everyone who murders have a mental illness?????....except "drug induced".

No. Many kill for money, over love lost or gained, in the heat of passion, and many, many other reasons. Why Do People Kill? 15 Motives for Murder

Many are not mentally ill when they do this evil act. Some are, though.

Sarah_W 05-28-2022 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dewilson58 (Post 2100216)
:ohdear::ohdear:

Doesn't everyone who murders have a mental illness?????....except "drug induced".

According to the links provided in the post that I responded the answer is no. I'm pretty sure being a racist is not considered a mental illness. Neither is hatred.


This story isn't making the news although it should.

Charleston, West Virginia, 5/25/22

On Wednesday evening a family was having a birthday-graduation party with 40 people in attendance. Dennis Butler drove through the neighborhood and was confronted and warned about speeding down the street because children were present. He left the area and returned later with an AR style rifle and began shooting at the party goers. A woman attending the party and was armed, as a lawful conceal carry holder. She immediately engaged the shooter, striking him several times and he died at the scene. Nobody at the part was struck. This woman stopped a mass shooting (by definition) from happening, but the news networks will not carry the story.

Dennis Butler was a convicted felon and therefore prohibited from having firearms.

Taltarzac725 05-28-2022 04:09 PM

Armed partygoer shoots, kills man who confronted group with rifle, police say

It has made some news stations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2100246)
According to the links provided in the post that I responded the answer is no. I'm pretty sure being a racist is not considered a mental illness. Neither is hatred.


This story isn't making the news although it should.

Charleston, West Virginia, 5/25/22

On Wednesday evening a family was having a birthday-graduation party with 40 people in attendance. Dennis Butler drove through the neighborhood and was confronted and warned about speeding down the street because children were present. He left the area and returned later with an AR style rifle and began shooting at the party goers. A woman attending the party and was armed, as a lawful conceal carry holder. She immediately engaged the shooter, striking him several times and he died at the scene. Nobody at the part was struck. This woman stopped a mass shooting (by definition) from happening, but the news networks will not carry the story.

Dennis Butler was a convicted felon and therefore prohibited from having firearms.


Stu from NYC 05-28-2022 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2100246)
According to the links provided in the post that I responded the answer is no. I'm pretty sure being a racist is not considered a mental illness. Neither is hatred.


This story isn't making the news although it should.

Charleston, West Virginia, 5/25/22

On Wednesday evening a family was having a birthday-graduation party with 40 people in attendance. Dennis Butler drove through the neighborhood and was confronted and warned about speeding down the street because children were present. He left the area and returned later with an AR style rifle and began shooting at the party goers. A woman attending the party and was armed, as a lawful conceal carry holder. She immediately engaged the shooter, striking him several times and he died at the scene. Nobody at the part was struck. This woman stopped a mass shooting (by definition) from happening, but the news networks will not carry the story.

Dennis Butler was a convicted felon and therefore prohibited from having firearms.

The woman is a hero and should be applauded. Unfortunately her actions did not fit the narrative that news wants to present so they ignored it. Sad.

Number 10 GI 05-28-2022 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scbang (Post 2099808)
OK then, why are we not allowed M50 machine gun? It's just another method of killing.

Sad

I don't know what a M50 machine gun is. There is the original M2, 50 caliber machine gun and you can legally own one. You will have to find a Class III gun dealer, fill out an application to purchase a machine gun, pay a $200 fee and if approved you can buy one from the dealer, if you can find one for sale. The big hurdle to owing a machine gun is the purchase price, usually in the multiple thousands of dollars and ammo is around $5.00 + a round.

Number 10 GI 05-28-2022 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scbang (Post 2099830)
Good luck defending yourself against F-35 with laser guided missiles..

SAD

Did you ever hear about a group of rebels called the Viet Cong? They were formerly known as the Viet Minh who fought against Japanese and French occupation. Guess who won? The name changed to the Viet Cong and they fought the U.S. for over a decade. They were bombed by F4 Phantoms, B52 bombers, sprayed with Agent Orange, attacked by Huey helicopters, Cobra gunships and shot at by artillery howitzers and 16 inch battleship guns. The Viet Cong had no tanks, artillery, fighters planes, or helicopters, guess who won?

Number 10 GI 05-28-2022 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2099839)
The we are not like Australia, Sweden, and etc.........that part sounds like some kind of "American Exceptionalism" rant to me. All those countries mentioned have stronger middle classes than the US does today. We have the largest wealth disparity of all the 1st world countries. I guess that is some sort of "American Exceptionalism".
........And the US economic realities lead to social dysfunction and even to such extremes of Mass Murder - because there is little money set aside for mental health and other social programs as in other countries. Texas recently lowered their budget for mental health. Is Texas actively trying to produce MORE mass murderers?

Crime should have been rampant during the Great Depression but from what I've read about that period of economic catastrophe, there wasn't a drastic rise in crime.

OrangeBlossomBaby 05-28-2022 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2100178)
I don't think it is hypocrisy. The NRA as well as the attendees are not against guns being at the convention. I've been to NRA conventions myself and had not problem carrying my handgun. It is the Secret Service who is dictating that no guns be present. That is the case at every single event that a person attends who they are charged to protect. Where any former President speaks, it will have to be gun free. As we can see from the recent headline where some Iraqi's were conspiring to kill George W. Bush. They don't have to be a sitting President to be at risk and the Secret Service will reduce as much risk as possible.

If I were the NRA, and the Secret Service said I wasn't allowed to have open carry at ALL of my convention, including a speaking engagement where they were present to protect only ONE singular person exclusively - I would tell that singular person he is not welcome in my convention.

Carrying a firearm is supposedly for self-protection, and to protect those around you. Either you're for it, or you're not. If you're for it, you wouldn't allow a handful of people to order you to put your firearms away so that they can protect ONE person only.

Number 10 GI 05-28-2022 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2099825)
Shooting deer and shooting watermelons or punching holes in paper are all OK gun activities with me. And protecting your home and castle. I draw the line at mass murder of human beings with GUNS designed mainly to kill human beings. Those guns are low recoil, 22 caliber, high velocity, high magazine capacity, and military-style rifles.
.......Government tyranny can best be prevented by votes, not bullets. And if that need ever EVEN happened, it could be stopped just as well with bolt action and single-shot rifles.
.........Australia and New Zealand will NOT FALL to government tyranny just because they don't want semi-automatics in the hands of civilians.

The long bow was a devastating weapon used by the English army. Armies of those times had huge wooden hammers called War Hammers that crushed skulls and shattered bones. The Mace, a large iron ball with spikes that was attached to a chain and swung by the soldier penetrating medieval armor crushing skulls and shattered bones. All kinds of knives and swords have been used as a weapon of war.

Nearly every firearm that has been made was a weapon of war so claiming the AR 15 is a weapon of war doesn't make it any different that say an M1 Carbine. In case you don't know, the M1 Carbine was a semi automatic rifle and the M2 Carbine was full automatic. The M1 and M2 carbines originally came with 15 round magazines and later in the war, 30 round magazines Carbines were sold in the millions as surplus after the war and how in many "mass shootings" have you ever heard about them being used?

You totally ignore the fact that kings and dictators over the centuries have banned the ownership of weapons by their subjects. They didn't want anybody challenging their power. If you don't think our government would never turn into a dictatorship you are totally naive when it comes to human nature and the desire for power.

OrangeBlossomBaby 05-28-2022 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sarah_W (Post 2100246)
According to the links provided in the post that I responded the answer is no. I'm pretty sure being a racist is not considered a mental illness. Neither is hatred.


This story isn't making the news although it should.

Charleston, West Virginia, 5/25/22

On Wednesday evening a family was having a birthday-graduation party with 40 people in attendance. Dennis Butler drove through the neighborhood and was confronted and warned about speeding down the street because children were present. He left the area and returned later with an AR style rifle and began shooting at the party goers. A woman attending the party and was armed, as a lawful conceal carry holder. She immediately engaged the shooter, striking him several times and he died at the scene. Nobody at the part was struck. This woman stopped a mass shooting (by definition) from happening, but the news networks will not carry the story.

Dennis Butler was a convicted felon and therefore prohibited from having firearms.

The bolded statement is untrue. Once again - a simple google search is all it took to find out you were wrong.

ABC News, WaPo, the AP, CBS News, heck it's gotten out to the UK with the BBS and the Saudi Gazette. It's not only news, it's international news.

OrangeBlossomBaby 05-28-2022 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu from NYC (Post 2100294)
The woman is a hero and should be applauded. Unfortunately her actions did not fit the narrative that news wants to present so they ignored it. Sad.

Unfortunately you chose to believe a stranger on an internet forum rather than check the claim for yourself. If you had, you would've discovered it DID get covered - by the Networks, the National press, and even the International press.

ABC presented it 2 days ago. Fox didn't get to it til yesterday, right along with the Saudi Gazette.

Taltarzac725 05-28-2022 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2100308)
Did you ever hear about a group of rebels called the Viet Cong? They were formerly known as the Viet Minh who fought against Japanese and French occupation. Guess who won? The name changed to the Viet Cong and they fought the U.S. for over a decade. They were bombed by F4 Phantoms, B52 bombers, sprayed with Agent Orange, attacked by Huey helicopters, Cobra gunships and shot at by artillery howitzers and 16 inch battleship guns. The Viet Cong had no tanks, artillery, fighters planes, or helicopters, guess who won?

They had a huge jungle and were very adept at guerrilla warfare. Guerrilla warfare - Wikipedia

History of guerrilla warfare - Wikipedia

Number 10 GI 05-28-2022 07:55 PM

To further follow up on the abusive power of government, in England there are Hate Speech laws that can get you prison time. Here is an excerpt from WikiPedia explaining the law:

Hate speech laws in England and Wales are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3][4] Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[5] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[6]

The Police and CPS have formulated a definition of hate crimes and hate incidents, with hate speech forming a subset of these. Something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on: disability, race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation. A hate incident becomes a hate crime if it crosses the boundary of criminality.[7]

Interpretation of the law is pretty wide open to whomever is in power. What if we had this law on the books, which would violate the 1st Amendment, and a sitting president decided that any speech criticizing his/her policies was Hate Speech? There are many people in this country who believe we should have such a law. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why the 2nd Amendment was written into the Constitution.

Taltarzac725 05-28-2022 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2100327)
To further follow up on the abusive power of government, in England there are Hate Speech laws that can get you prison time. Here is an excerpt from WikiPedia explaining the law:

Hate speech laws in England and Wales are found in several statutes. Expressions of hatred toward someone on account of that person's colour, race, disability, nationality (including citizenship), ethnic or national origin, religion, gender reassignment, or sexual orientation is forbidden.[1][2][3][4] Any communication which is threatening or abusive, and is intended to harass, alarm, or distress someone is forbidden.[5] The penalties for hate speech include fines, imprisonment, or both.[6]

The Police and CPS have formulated a definition of hate crimes and hate incidents, with hate speech forming a subset of these. Something is a hate incident if the victim or anyone else think it was motivated by hostility or prejudice based on: disability, race, religion, gender identity or sexual orientation. A hate incident becomes a hate crime if it crosses the boundary of criminality.[7]

Interpretation of the law is pretty wide open to whomever is in power. What if we had this law on the books, which would violate the 1st Amendment, and a sitting president decided that any speech criticizing his/her policies was Hate Speech? There are many people in this country who believe we should have such a law. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. That is why the 2nd Amendment was written into the Constitution.

This might be of interest.

Hate Speech and Hate Crime | Advocacy, Legislation & Issues

Number 10 GI 05-28-2022 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2100325)
They had a huge jungle and were very adept at guerrilla warfare. Guerrilla warfare - Wikipedia

History of guerrilla warfare - Wikipedia

We have urban jungles where criminals hide out and avoid arrest by the authorities so why couldn't guerrillas hide out there also? How do the middle eastern guerrilla fighters avoid being wiped out by the government's military? They live in a wide open desert!

Do you really believe that the Viet Cong were born with the ability to be guerrillas? They were trained, just like the Irish Republican Army, the Viet Cong, and all the Muslim terrorists.

Number 10 GI 05-28-2022 08:59 PM

Here is an interesting bit of firearm history a friend sent me:

"A hundred and twelve years ago, in 1907...our great grandparents were first able to the semi-auto Winchester Model 1907.
This is a gun they could buy from a Sears catalogue and have delivered via US Post. It was/ is a semi-automatic, high powered centerfire rifle, with detachable, high capacity magazine.
About 400,000 semi-automatic rifles were produced before WW2. Civilians had hundreds of thousands of these for 40 years, while US soldiers were still being issued old fashioned bolt action rifles.
The 1907 fired just as fast as an AR15 or AK47 and the bullet (.351 Winchester) was actually larger than those fired by the more modern looking weapons..
The ONLY functional difference between the 1907 and a controversial and much feared AR15 is the modern black plastic stock.

The semi auto, so-called "assault rifle" is 110 years old. It isnt new in any way.
The semi auto rifle was not a weapon of war. The government MADE IT a weapon of war 40 years after civilians had them.
The semi-auto can be safely owned by civilians. The proof is that literally 3 generations of adults owned and used them responsibly and no one ever even noticed.
Want to fix the horror of mass shootings? Fix the things that have changed in society for the worse in the last 50 years."

As I pointed out earlier, after WWII millions of semi automatic M1 Carbines were sold to the American public with 15 and 30 round magazines. You could buy them from catalogs and gun magazine ads and have them shipped directly to your home by the US Postal Service. Using all the illogic in this thread there should have been hundreds of shootings using the Model 1907 and M1 Carbine. What changed? Society and moral values have changed and not for the good. So easy to blame an inanimate object than to work on correcting the real problem. Gun bans, mental pablum for simple minds.

OrangeBlossomBaby 05-28-2022 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2100351)
Here is an interesting bit of firearm history a friend sent me:

"A hundred and twelve years ago, in 1907...our great grandparents were first able to the semi-auto Winchester Model 1907.
This is a gun they could buy from a Sears catalogue and have delivered via US Post. It was/ is a semi-automatic, high powered centerfire rifle, with detachable, high capacity magazine.
About 400,000 semi-automatic rifles were produced before WW2. Civilians had hundreds of thousands of these for 40 years, while US soldiers were still being issued old fashioned bolt action rifles.
The 1907 fired just as fast as an AR15 or AK47 and the bullet (.351 Winchester) was actually larger than those fired by the more modern looking weapons..
The ONLY functional difference between the 1907 and a controversial and much feared AR15 is the modern black plastic stock.

The semi auto, so-called "assault rifle" is 110 years old. It isnt new in any way.
The semi auto rifle was not a weapon of war. The government MADE IT a weapon of war 40 years after civilians had them.
The semi-auto can be safely owned by civilians. The proof is that literally 3 generations of adults owned and used them responsibly and no one ever even noticed.
Want to fix the horror of mass shootings? Fix the things that have changed in society for the worse in the last 50 years."

As I pointed out earlier, after WWII millions of semi automatic M1 Carbines were sold to the American public with 15 and 30 round magazines. You could buy them from catalogs and gun magazine ads and have them shipped directly to your home by the US Postal Service. Using all the illogic in this thread there should have been hundreds of shootings using the Model 1907 and M1 Carbine. What changed? Society and moral values have changed and not for the good. So easy to blame an inanimate object than to work on correcting the real problem. Gun bans, mental pablum for simple minds.

Untrue, although this took more than just a few seconds to check. This story is the #1 story on the entire first page of a google search. Digging just one layer deeper, I found that the AR-15 has a thing called a direct gas impingement used in the cycling and piston and bolt and some other mechanics that I don't even try to understand and don't care about.

What's interesting about it isn't what it is. It's that it was patented in the 1956. It didn't exist for the 50 years of the Winchester 1907's manufacture, until 4 years before the Winchester 1907 was retired. And - it was introduced by Colt, not Winchester.

So no, they're not exactly the same. They don't look the same, they didn't come with the same components, didn't fire the same ammo, didn't have the same weight, didn't have the same thrust, didn't have the same method of (whatever it is that bolts and pistons do).

The only thing they had in common is that they're both semi-automatic rifles.

Scbang 05-28-2022 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2100351)
Here is an interesting bit of firearm history a friend sent me:

What changed? Society and moral values have changed and not for the good. So easy to blame an inanimate object than to work on correcting the real problem. Gun bans, mental pablum for simple minds.

Very good points. As you have mentioned what changed? The society, culture and almost everything changed since 1907. We are not the same people whom we can trust with 1907 or M1 Carbine. Can we change us back to 1907? Maybe not. Then we should reconsider whether the current society can be trusted with 1907s and M1 Carbines safely..

SAD

Taltarzac725 05-28-2022 10:15 PM

Charles Whitman in the U of Texas tower and his actions changed things a lot. University of Texas tower shooting - Wikipedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2100351)
Here is an interesting bit of firearm history a friend sent me:

"A hundred and twelve years ago, in 1907...our great grandparents were first able to the semi-auto Winchester Model 1907.
This is a gun they could buy from a Sears catalogue and have delivered via US Post. It was/ is a semi-automatic, high powered centerfire rifle, with detachable, high capacity magazine.
About 400,000 semi-automatic rifles were produced before WW2. Civilians had hundreds of thousands of these for 40 years, while US soldiers were still being issued old fashioned bolt action rifles.
The 1907 fired just as fast as an AR15 or AK47 and the bullet (.351 Winchester) was actually larger than those fired by the more modern looking weapons..
The ONLY functional difference between the 1907 and a controversial and much feared AR15 is the modern black plastic stock.

The semi auto, so-called "assault rifle" is 110 years old. It isnt new in any way.
The semi auto rifle was not a weapon of war. The government MADE IT a weapon of war 40 years after civilians had them.
The semi-auto can be safely owned by civilians. The proof is that literally 3 generations of adults owned and used them responsibly and no one ever even noticed.
Want to fix the horror of mass shootings? Fix the things that have changed in society for the worse in the last 50 years."

As I pointed out earlier, after WWII millions of semi automatic M1 Carbines were sold to the American public with 15 and 30 round magazines. You could buy them from catalogs and gun magazine ads and have them shipped directly to your home by the US Postal Service. Using all the illogic in this thread there should have been hundreds of shootings using the Model 1907 and M1 Carbine. What changed? Society and moral values have changed and not for the good. So easy to blame an inanimate object than to work on correcting the real problem. Gun bans, mental pablum for simple minds.


Jack58033 05-29-2022 01:21 AM

The Japanese play violent video games but it does not correlate to gun violence. They make it hard to get guns.They don't have a fraction of the guns we have.

jdulej 05-29-2022 04:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725 (Post 2100363)
Charles Whitman in the U of Texas tower and his actions changed things a lot. University of Texas tower shooting - Wikipedia

///

jdulej 05-29-2022 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2100351)
Here is an interesting bit of firearm history a friend sent me:

"A hundred and twelve years ago, in 1907...our great grandparents were first able to the semi-auto Winchester Model 1907.
This is a gun they could buy from a Sears catalogue and have delivered via US Post. It was/ is a semi-automatic, high powered centerfire rifle, with detachable, high capacity magazine.
About 400,000 semi-automatic rifles were produced before WW2. Civilians had hundreds of thousands of these for 40 years, while US soldiers were still being issued old fashioned bolt action rifles.
The 1907 fired just as fast as an AR15 or AK47 and the bullet (.351 Winchester) was actually larger than those fired by the more modern looking weapons..
The ONLY functional difference between the 1907 and a controversial and much feared AR15 is the modern black plastic stock.

The semi auto, so-called "assault rifle" is 110 years old. It isnt new in any way.
The semi auto rifle was not a weapon of war. The government MADE IT a weapon of war 40 years after civilians had them.
The semi-auto can be safely owned by civilians. The proof is that literally 3 generations of adults owned and used them responsibly and no one ever even noticed.
Want to fix the horror of mass shootings? Fix the things that have changed in society for the worse in the last 50 years."

As I pointed out earlier, after WWII millions of semi automatic M1 Carbines were sold to the American public with 15 and 30 round magazines. You could buy them from catalogs and gun magazine ads and have them shipped directly to your home by the US Postal Service. Using all the illogic in this thread there should have been hundreds of shootings using the Model 1907 and M1 Carbine. What changed? Society and moral values have changed and not for the good. So easy to blame an inanimate object than to work on correcting the real problem. Gun bans, mental pablum for simple minds.

You note one of many examples of how humans find a way to take an object and subvert it to satisfy a desire the object was never intended for. Two I can think of in my half awake state are 1) Tylenol. The original was much more effective than today's version, but also could easily be broken down to provide a key ingredient for Speed. 2) Cocaine. 100+ years ago, this was in every households' medicine cabinet until society decided it shouldn't be.
In the above two cases, and all the others I have thought about, the "solution" has been to ban or change the object, NOT to expect people to stop subverting the object to fit their needs. This will happen to the semi auto as well eventually. The generation that is so hung up on the 2nd amendment in all its various interpretations is dying out, and the younger folks have better things to do with their time.
People who think they need to closet full of guns to protect them for "The Man" don't realize that they already lost that battle - society has already been molded to fit the fascist model - the 1 or 2% own and control everything, the middle 70% do all the work and get thrown a bone from time to time (that's us), and the rest get blamed for everything and keep the middle group dumb and happy.
All we can do until the day comes when this model falls apart (they all do eventually) is work around the edges to enjoy life.

Normal 05-29-2022 09:44 AM

Sad, but fixable
 
These shooters almost always seem to go for the militaristic look. The AR look seems to glorify their position before they do their dastardly deed and then become suicidal. Really, this shooter could have done a lot more damage with a shotgun and ammo tubes. Why not just remove the look and sell the semi automatic rifle with a hunting rifle style and look? Get rid of the MR. GI Joe appearance and glory.

jimjamuser 05-29-2022 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2100309)
Crime should have been rampant during the Great Depression but from what I've read about that period of economic catastrophe, there wasn't a drastic rise in crime.

Actually, crime and murders did increase during the Great Depression - it spawned many gang murders in the big cities and often involved the Mafia. Many factors were different in 1929 than today obviously. The US population was 123 million people then. Most people were farmers and the Midwest became a "dust bowl" where much of the rich topsoil blew away. The average farmer would own a shotgun or a bolt action rifle for deer hunting. Only career criminal mafia types would possess semi-auto rifles or automatic "machine guns". In 1929 the ratio of guns per person was probably less than .25 - today it is 1.2 guns per person in the US. In 1929 there was no NRA or gun manufacturer's lobby trying desperately (for high profits) to convince every young male that they NEEDED a semi-auto, low recoil, MAN-killing weapon with a 30 round banana mag. Yes, the "times they are a-changing"!

dewilson58 05-29-2022 11:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimjamuser (Post 2100509)
In 1929 the ratio of guns per person was probably less than .25 - today it is 1.2 guns per person in the US. Yes, the "times they are a-changing"!

In 1929, cars per person was .22 cars, today it's 1.8 cars.

Number 10 GI 05-29-2022 11:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby (Post 2100354)
Untrue, although this took more than just a few seconds to check. This story is the #1 story on the entire first page of a google search. Digging just one layer deeper, I found that the AR-15 has a thing called a direct gas impingement used in the cycling and piston and bolt and some other mechanics that I don't even try to understand and don't care about.

What's interesting about it isn't what it is. It's that it was patented in the 1956. It didn't exist for the 50 years of the Winchester 1907's manufacture, until 4 years before the Winchester 1907 was retired. And - it was introduced by Colt, not Winchester.

So no, they're not exactly the same. They don't look the same, they didn't come with the same components, didn't fire the same ammo, didn't have the same weight, didn't have the same thrust, didn't have the same method of (whatever it is that bolts and pistons do).

The only thing they had in common is that they're both semi-automatic rifles.

It is quite obvious you have absolutely no knowledge of firearms, and as you stated you really don't care about gaining the knowledge. A semi auto rifle is a semi auto rife no matter what is looks like, they still fire a single round with each pull of the trigger. Looks mean nothing when it comes to lethality or function.
The Model 1907 round has a heavier hitting bullet that is meant for large game animals where as the 5.56 x 45 MM round of the AR15 is considered the absolute minimum caliber for deer. Some states don't allow the use of the AR15 round for hunting large game.
Your point about when the AR was patented is irrelevant, what does that have to do with when the Model 1907 was introduced?
I never stated that the AR15 was made by Winchester. ArmaLite sold the rights to the design of the AR15 to Colt.

jimjamuser 05-29-2022 11:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Number 10 GI (Post 2100321)
The long bow was a devastating weapon used by the English army. Armies of those times had huge wooden hammers called War Hammers that crushed skulls and shattered bones. The Mace, a large iron ball with spikes that was attached to a chain and swung by the soldier penetrating medieval armor crushing skulls and shattered bones. All kinds of knives and swords have been used as a weapon of war.

Nearly every firearm that has been made was a weapon of war so claiming the AR 15 is a weapon of war doesn't make it any different that say an M1 Carbine. In case you don't know, the M1 Carbine was a semi automatic rifle and the M2 Carbine was full automatic. The M1 and M2 carbines originally came with 15 round magazines and later in the war, 30 round magazines Carbines were sold in the millions as surplus after the war and how in many "mass shootings" have you ever heard about them being used?

You totally ignore the fact that kings and dictators over the centuries have banned the ownership of weapons by their subjects. They didn't want anybody challenging their power. If you don't think our government would never turn into a dictatorship you are totally naive when it comes to human nature and the desire for power.

Actually, I think that it is now about 50 / 50 whether from 2024 on the US will BECOME a dictatorship. And I think that is the likely reason why the last 2 years have shown such a big increase in GUN OWNERSHIP - from 300 million to 400 million. So, I agree about that. And I agree that the Viet Cong rebels fought back with lower-tech battlefield equipment, mostly GUNS. And they used a BOLT-ACTION Mosin-Nagant rifle for sniper use.
..........So, IF (a BIG if) the US has a Dictatorship around 2026, then the rebels should be stacking up on long-range
sniper-type BOLT-ACTION rifles rather than the short-range military-style semi-autos.
..........Anyway, the easiest, least bloody, and best way to prevent a dictatorship is by votes, not bullets.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:27 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO v2.0.32 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2025 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.