Just for funsies:

No. In rough order of development:

Rifles are a long-barreled gun with a rifled barrel. Comes from the transition from smoothbores to rifled barrels. Fire one round per pull of the trigger.

Carbines are short-barreled rifles, sometimes firing less powerful ammunition. M1 from WWII, and the M4 these days - M4 can be full auto, but the short barrel tends to put it in the "Carbine" designation.

Machine guns were the early fully-automatic weapons, that continuously fired by holding the trigger down. Ma Duece, the MG42 from WWII, etc.

Submachine guns are machineguns that fire pistol ammunition, so they generally have less kick which made them controllable enough to carry, not have to get mounted. Tommy Gun, Schmeisser MP-40, MP5, etc.

Automatic rifles are shrunk machine guns that can fire from a bipod with a magazine, not belt-fed like most machine guns. Then you get things like the SAW that put the belt in a magazine and are more portable than the machineguns but fire like them. BAR is the most famous and original prototype, and the current SAW is considered one but you have the blurred line towards "Light Machinegun".

Assault rifles are the cross-breed, that fire full automatic with rifle rounds like machine guns do. 3-round burst modes were introduced because you can't fire more rounds than that accurately from something like that. AK-47, M-16, etc.

Things like barrel length, size of round, and firing modes tend to be the key differentiators, but there are also lots of hybrids that can make classification tricky. For example, is an AR-15 really an assault rifle, when the whole point of an assault rifle was the automatic fire for suppression that a regular rifle could not do? And an Uzi is not a machinegun.

That's why it's more important to talk about the specifics you are worried about, such as how many rounds can you fire before reloading. But even if you limit magazine size, that just asks for the shooter to carry more guns - most of these guys are already doing that.

Well said.

So the vast majority of people, and the vast majority of this board, is or has been mentally ill? Alcoholism or abusing drugs is often a sign of underlying mental illness, but the idea that anyone who has a couple drinks or some marijuana is mentally ill is ridiculous.

I'd say you could diagnose more than half this board with some degree of some mental illness, yes.

As you could over half the general population IMO.

There are about 90 traffic deaths per day in the USA. In 2013, there were just under 33,000 traffic deaths for the entire year.

So far this year, there have been 379 deaths in "mass shootings" across the United States.

Yes, many of them likely by illegal guns, but many also not. So this idea that one day of traffic deaths = one decade of rampage shooting deaths is wrong.

Not to mention the over 40,000 incidents of gun violence that aren't mass shootings that occur every year... of which there is a death rate that is about 1/3 of the traffic death rate. Just over 10,000 people this year alone.

A lot of those people probably still would've died if there was a ban on guns. But how many would not? Is there a number that would warrant action?

Your idea that gun control is a slippery slope that will lead to authoritarian banning is exactly the kind of thinking that prevents anything from happening. I know that I am naive, but wouldn't trying something be better than just writing off our inability to act to the Constitution whenever this comes up?

I think smoking cigarettes is disgusting, I don't understand why people chose to start doing it, but I'm not going to call them crazy or mentally ill. Heck, caffeine is a drug that is technically abused by millions of Americans every day. At a certain point calling everyone mentally ill means no one is mentally ill and it's counterproductive.

I came across this today, which is quite interesting:

Homicide | Harvard Injury Control Research Center | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health

Of course it's nigh on impossible to get rid of guns in the US, but there is a definite linkage it seems.

That provision of the constitution is more valuable than all of those lives, or 10x those lives, or 1000x those lives.

And that's the bottom line.

It is a right that provides more weight to all of the others.

I think "gun availability" is less of the issue, but culture isn't easily measured. I don't think guns are markedly harder to get in all of New England than they are in all of The South, but there's large cultural differences. There's a culture where guns are considered normal in the south, or the west, or in inner cities (even those up here like Roxbury, Springfield etc).

I don't think that makes us any less likely to have a school shooting because those are the acts of deranged individuals, but that list of "mass shootings" is a completely different animal. I only checked the first 2 Massachusetts ones, but I'm sure they'd all be the same areas - Roxbury, Dorchester, Mattapan, Springfield, maybe Worcester or Lynn. Lumping those in with school or workplace shootings is a mistake imo, as is pretending that there's any statewide (let one national) law that will be effective for both.

I struggle every year how to approach the gun topic in my government class. My opinion does not ever come up, but just presenting the issue is complicated.

It seems to me there are 3 main pro-gun groups/approaches:

1. Protection from bad guys
2. Protection from the government
3. Tradition, hobby, etc

As for my opinion:
Number 1 seems to do more harm than good. From family violence, suicide, mistakes/accidents, etc.

I agree with number 2 in so far as I do not think the institution that has the most irresponsible history of gun abuse is the best one to decide if I'm responsible.

Number 3 also seems reasonable, and similar to many other countries.

I forgot the word schools, sorry. Assumed it from the thread title.

What does gun control mean? How are we going to get the guns out of the places where the most gun deaths occur - mostly places where some of the strictest gun control laws proposed already exist?

I'd say the easiest way to get guns out of the places where the most gun deaths occur (the home) would be to disabuse people of the macho fantasy that owning a gun makes them a big, bad crime-stopper. In actuality, one is orders of magnitude more likely to use one to commit suicide (or worse, to have some kid in the home use it to accidentally kill themselves) than to stop a random home invasion.

I don't know many people at all that keep a gun in the house, and know all the stats that say you're as likely to kill a family member as an intruder, but I think there is something to the idea that the potential for a homeowner to have a gun does act as a deterrent to some people who would commit home invasions. It's strictly a hypothetical anyway, but if you ban home gun ownership (or self-defense inside the home), without getting all the guns away from criminals of course there would be some who would take advantage of that.

A big one out here is protection from animals, especially protection of pets and livestock. I guess it's not really "a pro-gun groups/approach" that's very vocal, but that's the main utility of guns for a lot of people in rural areas, especially those that aren't really "gun people" normally.

I promised myself I'd stay out of gun topics on this board but....... :D

1. Agree. Ratio of people saved because they had again vs. number of people killed through accidents/intentional incidents involving legal guns is a bit out of wack for this to hold much water with me.

2. This one in particular is the one that makes no sense to me, more so than the others. Having weapons to protect me against my own government is the kind of thing I would probably think of if I lived in Sierra Leone. Do I trust my government? Not really. Do I think having a rifle would do me any good if push came to shove - to the point where point #1 is worth forgetting? No. Chances of me taking up arms against my own government, 0.0000000000001%. Chances of me being shot by a legal firearm, much higher.

3. I have a problem with 'tradition'... just because something has happened for a long time, doesn't make it a good idea. I don't have a problem with 'hobby' though. Australia's gun laws get a lot of press, but you can still own a gun to hunt, a gun if you own a farm, etc. It's just very difficult and there are a lot of checks involved.

Campus Shooting Came After Fight Between Two Groups of Students - ABC News

There was a shooting at Northern Arizona University last night (at around 1 AM). It looks like two groups of people got in an argument at a frat house and an 18-year old had a gun and opened fire on one of the groups. He killed one student and injured three others.

I've usually been pretty libertarian when it comes to the gun issue, but I think there has to be a way to start addressing this issue without taking hunting rifles, shotguns and "one round per shot" handguns from lawful people. I honestly don't know the exact solution, but for the first time I'm atleast open to the discussion.

We need more cops with aggressive search & seizure capabilities. Get into the homes and take the guns by force if necessary. It's the only way to get them all.

Turn your first sentence into legislation. Done.

Yeah this sucks. My alma mater.

Acknowledging that not all guns are created equal is key.

IMO, Step One is obtaining agreement on what are legitimate reasons to own a gun. Things probably flow in a relatively straightforward manner from there.

Of course, Step One is not exactly easy.... :D

Acknowledging that not all people are created equal is also key.

:thumbsup:

Beyond that, I don't particularly belong in this thread. Have fun! Be productive!

Who the fuck brings a gun to a college party?

Not unheard of. I mean, wasn't that the whole thing at Auburn a few years back? (the shooting(s) at the apartment complex?) Also, it's not all that unusual for someone to fire off a few rounds at a frat party around here, just not usually at someone. I've heard that mentioned more than once just from hearing stuff from Greek row.

someone who is embarrassed to bring a knife?

I could be wrong, I'm no doctor, but I'll side with the science. So whatever that says is good with me.

Depends what neighborhood they grew up in. Might've been ingrained since birth to always be ready to fight at a partay.

Former Marine agrees to 15-year sentence after jury deadlocks in deputy shooting | Tampa Bay Times

So this dude is got enough mental issues for me to say he needs to go away. But after 10-years in....prison....this dude is going to go back out on to the streets? I'm sure that will end well...

When I saw them at UMass it was football players from the south or drug dealers from Springfield/Holyoke. Although from what I knew no one ever actually fired shots and most of the time they weren't even loaded, just used for the occasional pistol-whipping or to pull out if someone showed a knife.
You're not a scientist either but that doesn't stop you from being extremely skeptical of the public claims surrounding climate change. You really think there are fewer agendas and less money to be made in the psychology/pharmacology field?

Not exactly. I am extremely skeptical of the solutions being presented when no scientific fact has been established yet. As of right now, we are 99% in agreement that humans *may* have some influence on climate. Outside of the obvious--developing nations are over-populating--we still aren't entirely sure...and I'll grant that we can do something now, but we don't know how much we should throw at it.

To put it in a language you could probably understand better. We know that the Middle East is a problem. We don't know exactly why, but the consensus is that it needs to be fixed. So we throw money at it. We know more would help, but we aren't sure exactly how it helps, how much is needed, or how long we would need to spend it to see positive results. When we threw ungodly amounts of money at it through two wars, we saw some change, but we had to bail because our economy was tanking. The Liberals, aren't interested in a 10-year war against Global Warming...they want every last cent to go towards it indefinitely. We could very well sink our economy chasing after a fantasy (fixing Climate Change)...that's what I'm skeptical about. Not the scientific research that broadly states that "humans are at least somewhat responsible".

Sorry to go off-topic.

Sorry for going off-topic, not sorry for being really condescending!

He's a Red Sox fan...it almost happens naturally. :)

There were so many basement type classrooms in our school and I always familiarized myself with the exits almost out of second nature. Like anyone with violence in their heart could have barricaded this certain doorway and ran up a huge body count if they hit the one wing where this room I always had class in was in. Maybe I'm just hyper aware or something.

I'm gonna bump this one because today in KY there was another school shooting. This one saw 2 killed and 17 injured when a 15 yr old opened fire during classroom change.

I wonder if Bevin will propose mandatory guns for every student to combat the 2nd amendment threat that shooting will (possibly...fuck no, they gave up trying long ago) bring.

I've got 2 in HS, and even though they are 4.5 hours away, it's still my state and it leaves me feeling just a bit more uneasy.

Maybe we should ban schools so this doesn't happen again.

I mean guns aren't going to get touched in any meaningful way.

dola,

I just wonder what was going on in the kid's life that he felt that he needed to shoot up a school and guaranteeing himself life in prison or an early grave.

Trust me, it does me too. Crazy times for us school admins.

Marshall County is about 3 hours from here and way out in SW KY, so I don't know anything first-hand, but it's only about an hour from where Caitlin goes to college and she has a teammate from Paducah, which is close by. Not sure if this info is going to ultimately come out as the truth, but what they are hearing is the shooter is a bullied band member who targeted athletes.

I have become one of those people who sees one of these stories and just says Ok. I never thought I will be this indifferent about school shootings.

Me either. It's not even top billing in the news any longer. They simply happen and we move on. USA Today has it as one of the higher up stories, and had a notification for it yesterday. CNN has it buried behind a literal mountain of trump. Fox doesn't even have it on their lead page, but they do have a story about a teacher stripping and chasing kids. It's not a lead on Reuters either. It's just one more day in the life of a high school kid in the USA.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/23/u...-shooting.html

another one?
looks bad

https://www.nbcmiami.com/news/local/...474078423.html

At least 20 injured. If only we could reach these people before they do this.

Shooter at large after gunfire at Florida high school-police

Hopefully injuries are just from running away and not bullets. The school shootings really mess me up.

I had to open my big mouth :(

I wanted to throw up when I saw this thread bumped.

I dislike congressman saying things at this point

Congressman said there are numerous fatalities. And that lots still inside. They showed someone being put in the back of a police car. I really don't think they know much yet.

Shooter is a student and is in custody.