Sad sign of the times

[RememberSchiff]

Okay then, @HelpfulTracks @Col. Flagg let's keep it courteous and just agree to disagree. Thanks.

@NJCubScouter , @LeCastor

[Col. Flagg]

4 minutes ago, RememberSchiff said:

Okay then, @HelpfulTracks @Col. Flagg let's keep it courteous and just agree to disagree. Thanks.

@NJCubScouter , @LeCastor

Really? I thought @HelpfulTracks and I were fine? I took nothing he said out of context, nor did I read in to anything he wrote as being discourteous. Quite the opposite. I thought it was a good conversation. I used the phrase "Enlighten me" as just that, wanting to know what he meant. 

I think you are reading way too much in to what people are writing. @HelpfulTracks and I were just having a normal conversation.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Col. Flagg

[Col. Flagg]

I swear.  Thanks for deleting a perfectly civil and respectable comment.

[RememberSchiff]

2 hours ago, Col. Flagg said:

I swear.  Thanks for deleting a perfectly civil and respectable comment.

When a member states that he/she wants withdraw from a discussion as @HelpfulTracks so stated, his/her request will be respected. Bullying a member to continue a discussion will not be tolerated.

This forum is to provide information, express opinions, and discuss Scouting and related issues according to Scout Oath and Law.

@NJCubScouter , @LeCastor

Edited February 23, 2018 by RememberSchiff

[HelpfulTracks]

1 hour ago, RememberSchiff said:

When a member states that he/she wants withdraw from a discussion as @HelpfulTracks so stated, his/her request will be respected. Bullying a member to continue a discussion will not be tolerated.

This forum is to provide information, express opinions, and discuss Scouting and related issues according to Scout Oath and Law.

@NJCubScouter , @LeCastor

I don't feel bullied. I just didn't want to continue trying to get my point across over the next 20 post and get wrapped on the knuckles by the mods for arguing like I did a few weeks ago.

I have already decreased the amount of time I spend on these boards to stay clear of the mods. I guess it wasn't enough.

[RememberSchiff]

Glad you did not feel bullied.

As to getting wrapped on the knuckles,  what are you referring to?  I found no warnings issued to you.

I only found a misunderstanding as to why a thread was locked which had nothing to do with you as Sentinel947 explained to you and you acknowledged "Fair enough, thanks".

Thanks for the feedback.  -RS

@NJCubScouter , @LeCastor

[Oldscout448]

On 2/22/2018 at 10:38 PM, David CO said:

I saw a news report today that said the armed deputy sheriff who was working at the school took a defensive position outside the school instead of doing his job protecting the students from the shooter.

I am disgusted. 

 

And now I hear from CNN that there were FOUR  deputies waiting outside the school.  Outrageous if true.  I am looking for verification. 

Can some of you more computer savvy guys help me out?

Edited February 24, 2018 by Oldscout448

[blw2]

On 2/23/2018 at 12:06 PM, Col. Flagg said:

From my perspective, it is not the technology that is causing these shootings. Rather the technology is making the body count higher than it would be if the citizenry were allowed their arms, BUT those arms were not military-grade.

I've got my 12- and 20-gauge, a replica 50-cal muzzleloader and a model 700 CDL bolt action. All used for hunting and sport (clays/target). NONE are the type of weapon to cause mass carnage. Such weapons are simply not needed by the citizenry. 

Don't own a handgun. My Gen-X 40# compound will take any intruder down. 

I don't own an AR-15 and have never handled one or anything like it.....don't want to, and really don't understand why anyone else would want to or need to either, (except maybe a military vet in a memorabilia collection)....but i really fail to see how they are any different really than for example an M1 Garand...EXCEPT larger capacity magazines are readily available.   Any person with a magazine fed rifle and multiple clips could do exactly the same thing.  Exactly...

Many hunting rifles are magazine fed and therefore this potential has been readily available and accessible to the public since when?...I don't know but I do know for sure long before I was born...and I'm an old guy. 

I still contend that it's not the hardware, it is something else...and I suspect it's muti layered....but it's not the hardware.

 

[Hawkwin]

32 minutes ago, blw2 said:

but i really fail to see how they are any different really than for example an M1 Garand...EXCEPT larger capacity magazines are readily available

Rate of fire on an M1 is 40-50 rounds a minute and as you eluded to, can only carry 8 rounds. AR-15 rate of fire is 90-120 rounds a minute and can carry 30-round magazines.

No way a person with an M1 could be as intentionally lethal as the same person with an AR-15.  The person with the AR can fire 30 rounds before the person with the M1 can fire 9 rounds.

 

35 minutes ago, blw2 said:

and I suspect it's muti layered

Agreed, but much like reckless driving is the fault of the driver and not the car driven, the lethality of car accidents is very much dependent on car design and safety features.

[CalicoPenn]

Yes, guns and cars have both been used to kill people but guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing things.  And you have to have more intensive training to get a drivers license which allows you to drive a car legally.  You don't need a license, or insurance, or much training at all to have a gun.

 

 

[Eagledad]

1 minute ago, CalicoPenn said:

Yes, guns and cars have both been used to kill people but guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing things.  And you have to have more intensive training to get a drivers license which allows you to drive a car legally.  You don't need a license, or insurance, or much training at all to have a gun.

 

 

Kill things! Is that like saying knives are designed to kill things? Or the SUV that kills drivers of other cars.

Go visit a shooting range and count how many things are killed. I don't know, but I feel safe in saying that 99.999 percent of the bullets shot from these guns were not intended to kill anything. And it's probably just as safe to say that 99.9999 of gun owners have never killed anything either. That includes hunters.

Guns are tools for sport, just like the killer baseball bat. In fact, there is actually a number of golfers killed each years by impelling themselves with a club that somehow struck a tree. I imagine they just need better training for hitting trees with their clubs.

Guns are just tools like chainsaws, power saws, drills and even the evil nail "gun". I don't know how it is now, but the tree/limb saw was the most common reported woods tools accident by scouts and scouters. I know for a fact that schools have far more injuries in the shop classes than the number of gun incidents at schools. Is the band saw designed to kill?

While I'm open to practical ideas on this subject, lets keeps things in perspective.

Barry

[blw2]

33 minutes ago, Hawkwin said:

Rate of fire on an M1 is 40-50 rounds a minute and as you eluded to, can only carry 8 rounds. AR-15 rate of fire is 90-120 rounds a minute and can carry 30-round magazines.

No way a person with an M1 could be as intentionally lethal as the same person with an AR-15.  The person with the AR can fire 30 rounds before the person with the M1 can fire 9 rounds.

 

all driven by the magazine sizes...nothing more really....

what is the rate of fire for the old Remington 740 rifle I used to hunt with when I was growing up?  It's basically as fast as the trigger can be pulled... considering magazine size though, I'd guess on average similar to an M1 with the standard magazine... I think you could get a 10 or 20 round magazine for it....maybe larger....what would that rate of fire be?....

....regardless, rate of fire has little to do with it if there's nobody there tooled up to stop the nut from reloading....

[Oldscout448]

16 minutes ago, CalicoPenn said:

Yes, guns and cars have both been used to kill people but guns are designed for the sole purpose of killing things.  And you have to have more intensive training to get a drivers license which allows you to drive a car legally.  You don't need a license, or insurance, or much training at all to have a gun.

 

 

Sadly as a JROTC, the shooter,  I refuse to use his name, probably had training.  

BTW, I have used both the  AR-15 and the M-1 carbine. That's a WW2 era weapon.  Both use detachable magazines ( 5,10,15, or 30 rounds) and have similar rates of fire. 

When the army stopped using them after the Korean conflict the surplus ammo was so cheap a number of manufacturers began producing inexpensive clones by the thousands. You could mail order the things from Sears untill '68.  

So again where were all the mass shootings then? What changed? I suspect there is no one answer 

 

[Hawkwin]

1 minute ago, blw2 said:

all driven by the magazine sizes...nothing more really....

Well, unless you are proposing we ban magazines that can hold more than 8 rounds, magazine capacity will continue to be relevant. Additionally, the time required to change a mag and acquire target is not insignificant and it adds a significant decrease to the ROF. You are also vulnerable to attack and being disarmed while reloading.

Rem 740 holds 4 rounds so I would assume the ROF to be significantly less than even the M1. Probably 20-30 rounds a minute.

13 minutes ago, blw2 said:

....regardless, rate of fire has little to do with it if there's nobody there tooled up to stop the nut from reloading....

No major disagreement, but my gut tells me that if the shooter was armed with your Rem 740, even an unarmed bystander or two could have subdued him while he was fumbling with trying to reload.

[MattR]

49 minutes ago, Eagledad said:

Kill things! Is that like saying knives are designed to kill things? Or the SUV that kills drivers of other cars.

TNT is also a tool. A tool you need a special license to use.

This whole discussion of guns is not moving forward. While the constitution talks about rights it doesn't talk much about responsibilities. We, as a society, have a responsibility towards the poor. We also have a responsibility regarding safety. Both of those responsibilities come from the idea that every life has value. So, when drunk driving causes roughly 25 deaths every day there is a very strong attempt to solve that safety issue. It's not just laws. Parents talk to their kids, there are designated drivers, etc. Nobody has banned driving or alcohol but there is an attempt to solve this problem.

I read that 96 people a day die from guns. And yet any attempt to solve this is being blocked because of our constitutional rights. What about our responsibilities towards life, as described in the first pages of the bible? The same bible that so many of the people that are fighting for our rights believe in.  Do our rights justify ignoring all those deaths? Just as I don't think cars and alcohol should be banned I don't think guns should be banned. But there are some very simple laws that could be passed that would reduce the number of deaths. And yet we can't even agree on any of that.

The NRA, up until the late 70's, seemed to understand all of this. There were laws restricting guns. The NRA was known for teaching gun safety. The NRA lost its way and all they do is try to shut down conversation. If they were effectively making changes to improve gun safety it would be another story, they'd be more believable. But just passing it all off as mental health issues is just a lame excuse. I don''t believe they really care about any of those deaths. To say those people would just find another way to kill themselves is a very sad comment on our society.

Yet I do believe our society will do the right thing, eventually.