Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

I was right with you until that. What the heck?

It was a FEMALE security guard who stopped a mass-shooting a couple weeks ago at a San Antonio, Texas movie theater showing The Hobbit. She put several rounds in the shooter after he fired a single shot into a crowd.

Sexism has no place in a debate like this.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

She was actually an off-duty sheriff's deputy, a sergeant if I recall correctly. She did a damn fine job.

With proper training and certification though, there can be some competent security guards who can carry firearms. In PA we have Act 235, which is essentially the lethal weapons training act. This allows certified security officers and the like to carry firearms in the performance of their duties.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

As I read it, she was an off-duty sheriff's deputy who was supplementing her law enforcement income by working as private security for the movie theater.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Don't you have to pull the hammer back on a revolver before it will fire?



Just what sort of "self-defence" are we talking about here? I mean if you have a conceal and carry permit, just how many magazines are you planning on taking with you? If it's home defence, just how many shots does it take to scare a burglar away?

I find your comparison here to be quite disingenuous. You might as well be advocating for anti-tank missiles in every American home. Hell go the whole hog and get some nukes. Because you're just not safe without a big red button.



A magazine isn't a whole lot more than a metal sleeve with a spring inside. Just as most people could figure out how to make an auto-loader for a revolver. Most could make a new magazine with a reasonable chance of success. Not to mention there are already more high capacity magazines on the market than there are guns. This measure is pretty toothless.

Remember there are over 3 million AR-15s in privet ownership in the USA.
 
For those interested, more polling has been done and the majority of Americans favor a ban on high-capacity magazines and the vast majority favor increased background checks. The majority opposes a ban on semi-automatic weapons and the vast majority opposes a ban on handguns. Personally, I agree on all four points, which I guess makes me a centrist by American standards

http://www.guns.com/2012/12/28/gallup-poll-americans-oppose-assault-weapons-ban-but-support-universal-background-checks/



Only on single-action-only revolvers, a rarity nowadays. Most modern revolvers are single-action/double-action (you can fire the weapon without manually pulling back the hammer, or you can pull it back for a lighter trigger pull and thus more accuracy) or double-action-only (no exposed hammer--a common design with conceal-carry revolvers so that the hammer won't catch on clothing while you draw it).



One to two additional magazines isn't unusual for those carrying a firearm for self-defense. Not everyone does, but some do.



dis·in·gen·u·ous

1.withholding information: withholding or not taking account of known information
2.not genuinely sincere: giving a false impression of sincerity or simplicity

WOW. I'm done debating with you if you're going to attack my integity instead of just disagreeing with my conclusions. Not to mention, arguing that the ability to quickly reload a pistol is equivalent to advocating private ownership of suitcase nukes...now there's a poor comparison if I've ever heard one.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Virtually all modern revolvers people favor for concealed carry tend to be hammerless nowadays. My Ruger SP101, for example.





I almost always carry an extra magazine or speed loader on me.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

You gotta love it when people with no experience in carrying or shooting firearms tell you what they think you need for self defense. Jeebus this thread just underscores just how little people who aren't raised around firearms know about them.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Sorry, I have a strange sense of humor. I figured the sudden change in personality would make people realize it was a stupid joke. I keep making this mistake on the internet, but it's hard for me not to be myself.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

No, my bad, I consistently miss when people are being sarcastic or joking (both online and in person).
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Just a little clarification, I'm assuming your referring to handguns only because this statement is not accurate of all firearm architecture. Many rifles and shotguns are available as semi-auto firing mechanisms with built in magazines. And properly maintained they can provide years of service. No point other than to clarify for those who may not be familiar with guns.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

That's a double edged sword. People who were raised around firearms wouldn't know what it's like being raised without firearms. Therefore both parties have equally valid opinions about self defense.

Although I don't understand why it matters so much to know the ins and outs about firearms to have an opinion on them, when they're basically all the same anyway. You point it at something, pull a trigger and a bullet kills the thing you're pointing at. To be honest, I think all this talk about magazines and quickloaders is pointless. This thread should probably be more about schools safety in the US and less about the technical mumbo jumbo of guns.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Tangent: was looking at getting an SP101 myself. You happy with yours?
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Sure they would... or could. If they were introduced to them in their teenage or later years then they would be albe to understand the difference in the mindset and the discipline required to own one... and their previous misconceptions about firearms and how they're handled and the issues surrounding them.



Uh no. This is exactly what I'm talking about. If they were then there wouldn't be such a big debate nationwide about what constitutes an assault weapon would there?



Again... err... no. It doesn't always work out like that. If it did then gangmembers pulling drive by shootings with stolen handguns wouldn't be missing their targets and hitting the grandmother down the block, the mother inside her home watching TV or the random crossing the street at the wrong place/wrong time.

People love to blame guns for the ills of the world. Until they have a direct family member that was able to save his or her own life or the life of a loved one because of a gun. I've been over this at one point earlier in the other thread that got locked down. Those who are anti-gun seem to think there is going to be some magic 'start from year zero' and no one will have guns. We're two centuries too late for that.



If you view it as technical mumbo jumbo then it's probably safe to assume you're not a gun owner and haven't been around firearms all that much. It can be important to the overall picture. Especially when the bills that are being put forth for banning of particular types of weapons are heavily dependent on such mumbo jumbo.

The bigger issue in the states that no one will ever discuss is why people are no longer forcibly committed when they are a threat to themselves or those around them. Which would in turn highlight the fact of how dysmal the mental health system is in the United States. The reason no one delves into it is because they wouldn't have a clue about it unless they personally know someone who's worked in mental health or had issues. That's right at the root of the problem.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

Extremely. I have the .357 as pictured and I love it. It almost makes Mrs. Kuma jealous.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

You were talking about self defense, not firearms. I misunderstood.



It wouldn't be the first time the mass of a nation is looking past the actual problem. You can argue all you want but all firearms are the same, in the same way that all martial arts are the same. Purpose and result. The execution doesn't matter very much here, because there is no level playing field.



That's a case of skill with the guns, the guns themselves are quite accurate but you know that better than I do. Again, I don't see how gun skill matters when we're talking about maniacs walking into schools with high powered rifles.


This is the argument Americans like to make, that sounds like the biggest lie of them all. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Am I right?

Well I couldn't disagree with this statement more even if I wanted to. Guns give every single person, regardless of physical strength, life experience or mental stability, the ability to play god with another person's life. They're extremely unfair weapons if you look at the rest of our arsenal. It should already be well known that many people cannot handle such a responsibility, while others even seek to exploit it. The existence of guns makes people who want to kill innocents, like 10 times as efficient. Now I won't argue against the existence of guns, but by god they are not the holy gatekeepers of heaven people make it out to be. The only reason why I think the US should keep its gun laws intact is because you can't do anything against the existence of them. And also because most Americans will turn into terrorists if you take their guns away, but that's okay because they gave warnings.

I seriously think banning specific types of weapons is completely pointless. The guy could have done the same if he carried a bunch of revolvers. Surely it shouldn't be too hard to wear several holsters and if it is someone would figure out a way. Maybe he would've killed a few kids less, but I seriously do not think that's an improvement in any sort of way.


Mental health is impossible to keep track of. Many people are not visibly in bad mental health. In some cases a person who has a lot of stress can do things he would normally never do. And not all of them are looking for professional help. So they can take up arms without suspicion, because they are valid gun owners on paper.

People in bad mental health who are getting professional help, sometimes these people can somehow get guns as well. This is regrettable, but solving this problem would not solve the former problem.

Because of all these inevitable scenarios, I am strongly for armed guards at schools. And not with high powered rifles, but just holstered hand guns. So that at least, someone will get a good look before waltzing into an elementary school.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

If you've never needed to use a firearm in self defense then you don't know any better than anyone else, just as martial artists who have never been in a fight have no idea about the realities of fighting.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

I don't consider the use of a gun to be comparable to whether or not you can grapple on the ground. It is a completely disingenuous comparison.
 
The whole problem with this problem is that is more than just one problem.

One is that guns are a part of our culture here in the US.

Another is that pretty much all Americians distrust the government just for different reasons.

Also our mental health care in this country is pretty poor. There are ways to screen for personality disorders even at an early age and this process could start in school but then our distrust of government rears its head and scuttles that.

There are large numbers of people who have no familiarity with guns. I know I didn't until I enlisted in the Marine Corps.

And as Slip mentioned we have people with no gun skills blasting away at each other. Perhaps if gang bangers were required to complete some sort of training we could reduce the number of driveby shootings and have more skilled sniper type shootings where the shooters hit what they are shooting at. (Miltov, sarcasm alert for this bullet point, pun intended)

Of course our politicians rather than taking a look at all the complex issues that underly the problem they will go for quick fixes and sound bites.

I will agree with the reduction in magazine capacity as a good start. Large capacity magazines are for those lacking in skills. Any trained shooter knows how easy it is to switch magazines.
 
Man arrested for 2x4 labeled "High Powered Rifle"

I've often heard arguments against magazine capacity, claims of "need" (which tend to be spoken as if the Bill of Rights were a set of privileges granted by the government based on some assessment of need, rather than rights inherent in the citizen where the government is not to tread), and that skilled shooters can dispatch all enemies with fewer than n shots (n usually is equal to 10 for most rhetorical purposes; none of them explain why it's ten and not twelve or eight or fifteen). (Though I'm not ascribing all of those arguments to you.) It seems curious that none of them ever state whether the police should also be disarmed down to the level that the proposed law requires. Certainly given that they are trained as shooters, they should know how easy it is to switch magazines and should never need full-capacity magazines to defend themselves?
 
Back
Top