Shooting at Atlanta Middle School Leaves 8th Grader Shot in the Head

[thekev]

Originally Posted by glocke12

"Police have revealed the chilling array of deadly weapons they seized in just four months - including a crossbow and a traditional samurai sword.
The fearsome arsenal, which even includes a gold-plated axe, was put on display yesterday by West Midlands Police as part of a new anti-weapons campaign.
Other dangerous arms featured in the grim haul are nunchuks, knuckle dusters, a giant flick knife and crude planks of wood with nails hammered into them."

Many of those things would also be illegal here. If the objective was to torture the victim, it doesn't require illegal tools at all. Generally the arguments regarding guns are about the amount of death and destruction that can be caused accidentally or within a short time.

Originally Posted by glocke12

I'll even beat you (or some other liberal) to a response to this:

Do you really view everything in those terms? I don't think your own lack of ability to form a real argument is due to your political ideology.

Originally Posted by glocke12

So you are denying the UK crime rate ? Do you have alternative stats? or proof that it is not that high?

People in the UK view the Daily Mail much like we'd view the Enquirer here. It's not highly regarded.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by classicaliberal

This is because you place far too much value on media sensationalism, and not near enough on cold, hard, statistics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._homicide_rate

And yet you (and I) live in a country who takes that same media sensationalism and believes it as fact, whereas where he lives (Australia) sees it for what it truly is: a farce. It is called 'sensationalism' for a reason, you know.. too bad most Yank's common sense gets thrown out the bloody window when it comes down to truly separating the news from sensationalism.. Even more so with the common sense of some people in this thread, let alone this forum.

BL.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by prostuff1

Any number of things.

In general it is used with the lunches that I pack. I usually have an apple, pear, peach, etc and usually cut it up for lunch.

Aren't you at work?

We have knives at work.

I don't need to carry one out the door when I leave.

[prostuff1]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Aren't you at work?

Generally yes, but a pocket knife has other uses than when I am only at work. Besides that the only ones here in the office that I have been able to find are of the butter knife variety and would no more cut an apple as a piece of paper.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by prostuff1

Generally yes, but a pocket knife has other uses than when I am only at work.

Uh-huh. Yet somehow yet I've made it to 52 without one.

I must be exceptional.

Originally Posted by prostuff1

Besides that the only ones here in the office that I have been able to find are of the butter knife variety and would no more cut an apple as a piece of paper.

Keep one in your desk drawer.

That's the kind of solution that exceptional people can come up with.

[CalWizrd]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Uh-huh. Yet somehow yet I've made it to 52 without one.

I must be exceptional...

There can be no doubt that you are, at the very least, exceptional.

[MuddyPaws1]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Why do you carry a knife?

To cut stuff. That's a silly question. I use one almost every day.

[eric/]

I'm still trying to figure out why we're discussing reasons for somebody wanting to own or carry something. It doesn't matter, you can do whatever you want, and you never have to justify that to anybody, ever. (obviously excluding the law, but only because people will come kill you for breaking it)

[MuddyPaws1]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

A shooting in Atlanta. SHOCKING


How in the hell did a middle school kid get a gun?

----------



This wasn't a mass shooting.

Originally Posted by DakotaGuy

Hmm... I read this entire thread and not once did anyone mention any sort of responsibility on the part or the parent of the child that did the shooting.

Oh that's right, we can't hold parents or the person responsible accountable for anything anymore. It's pretty much "we can't hold anyone responsible for these things except for law abiding citizens who have not broken the law." Crack down hard on these law abiding folks, but when it comes to those committing the crimes or being an accessory to the crimes... well they can't help it... so give them a pass.

That's what I was getting at. If the kid got the gun from home, the parents should also be charged with the crime....and more.

My kid doesn't even have access to his BB guns unless I am there with him, let alone any of the real firearms in my home.

If he got it on the street, then go after those bastards. Not the people who own and use firearms responsibly.

[Peterkro]

Originally Posted by rdowns

I for one couldn't be more proud of those second amendment patriots who rose up and stopped the tyranny that NYC practices with its stop and frisk program, used over 600,000 times in 2011.

A very similar law to that in place in London (and other places) and as far as I can see enforced in the same racist way.

It's notoriously difficult to compare crime rates between countries with one noticeable exception that of murder.
For instance in the U.S. there are four areas of crime recorded as violent,aggravated assault,robbery,forcible rape and murder whereas in England and Wales any violence at all against the person is a violent crime e.g. common assault is a violent crime.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by thekev

Do you really view everything in those terms? I don't think your own lack of ability to form a real argument is due to your political ideology.

actually those arent my terms...ive been told on this very forum in other threads when I bring up the UK violence rate that it is "better to be stabbed/bludgeoned than it is to be shot"..

its probably in the same thread where I was told that if I studied and practiced martial arts I would not need a gun for self defense...

[eric/]

Originally Posted by glocke12

actually those arent my terms...ive been told on this very forum in other threads when I bring up the UK violence rate that it is "better to be stabbed/bludgeoned than it is to be shot"..

its probably in the same thread where I was told that if I studied and practiced martial arts I would not need a gun for self defense...

I remember that

[niuniu]

Originally Posted by Peterkro

A very similar law to that in place in London (and other places) and as far as I can see enforced in the same racist way.

Huge problem in London. Spent most my time listening to complaints from teenage black males about constant stop and searches when working in youth justice in Lewisham. It was so extreme that we had a training programme and guidelines on how they should deal with it.

[Technarchy]

Originally Posted by glocke12

actually those arent my terms...ive been told on this very forum in other threads when I bring up the UK violence rate that it is "better to be stabbed/bludgeoned than it is to be shot"..

its probably in the same thread where I was told that if I studied and practiced martial arts I would not need a gun for self defense...

That's pretty hilarious.

My take on violence is fairly simple. If you lay your hands on me, the chances of you being shot several times is pretty high. If you're in my home and you don't belong there, expect to also get shot several times till you stop moving.

Don't do either of those things and you wont have a problem.

[thekev]

Originally Posted by glocke12

actually those arent my terms...ive been told on this very forum in other threads when I bring up the UK violence rate that it is "better to be stabbed/bludgeoned than it is to be shot"..

its probably in the same thread where I was told that if I studied and practiced martial arts I would not need a gun for self defense...

I read quite a few of these threads. I don't remember reading those statements. I wouldn't call the UK perfect, and I don't expect to see gun bans. There are many things I would like to see. Illegal guns were either initially purchased legally or stolen, but trafficking of firearms needs to be better controlled. They shouldn't be readily accessible to children even if their parents own guns. I'm not sure what the solution is there. Purchasing laws should be consistent between shops and gun shows, and there needs to be some minimum level of education regarding gun safety and at the very least what constitutes the use of a firearm in self defense. Gun culture is something I find kind of disgusting in general, but I've never suggested the likely solution is a complete ban. Gun experts not funded by the NRA would be useful in terms of determining regulation, and it shouldn't be pandering regulation. It should be designed to reduce unnecessary violence.

Most of those other weapons would be illegal here too. Nunchucks and dual edged knives are illegal. I think swords are legal, but they can't be sold beyond a certain sharpness level. I don't remember all the details.

By the way, I get kind of irritable when everything is described as a partisan issue, thus the prior response.

[Technarchy]

If you trust these people to make "sensible" gun laws, your trust is woefully misplaced. Trusting imbeciles rarely goes well.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by thekev

I read quite a few of these threads. I don't remember reading those statements.

http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost...&postcount=121

theres the one reference for you about learning martial arts...I dont have time to search for the other one right now.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

That's what I was getting at. If the kid got the gun from home, the parents should also be charged with the crime....and more.

My kid doesn't even have access to his BB guns unless I am there with him, let alone any of the real firearms in my home.

If he got it on the street, then go after those bastards. Not the people who own and use firearms responsibly.

I'm totally down with that and agree wholeheartedly. But as I said before, I'm waiting for the investigation to reveal the facts about what has happened, then will go on the tirade about parents. We don't even know how the kid got the gun let alone what his motives were behind this. Let's wait for that to come out first.

Originally Posted by Technarchy

That's pretty hilarious.

My take on violence is fairly simple. If you lay your hands on me, the chances of you being shot several times is pretty high. If you're in my home and you don't belong there, expect to also get shot several times till you stop moving.

Don't do either of those things and you wont have a problem.

You're so cut and dry with this.. Are you telling us that with your military training and as a civilian, if someone put their hands on you, you would quickly go straight to the gun? That you wouldn't have the training in you to take down the guy without having to resort to a weapon? If you immediately have to hide behind a weapon, that training of yours again must have been really pisspoor.

As a soldier, you should be able to handle that. If not, you're in trouble.

Castle Doctrine aside, again, as a civilian with military training, you should have the thinking, training, and ability to apply all applicable options to diffuse the situation before resorting to weaponry. Also, you should know and have the ability to discern between "shoot to disable" and "shoot to kill". If you think your death is imminent, you should know the decision to make. otherwise, you would be going too far too fast.

This is the problem we are having.. It's people like this and being so bloody trigger happy that has us in the situation we are in; military, pro-gun extremists, or otherwise.

Originally Posted by Technarchy

If you trust these people to make "sensible" gun laws, your trust is woefully misplaced. Trusting imbeciles rarely goes well.

Just like some Reds trusting in people to make sensible laws when they go to such lengths as making up and justifying "legitimate rape".

Pot/Kettle/Black.

BL.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

To cut stuff. That's a silly question. I use one almost every day.

That wasn't the question.

The question is, why do you carry a knife with you?

I use knives everyday as well.

But I leave them at home when I go out.

I can't remember the last time I needed to cut something outside of my home or work.

YMMV.

[Sydde]

Originally Posted by niuniu

We had high gun crime, and we dealt with it, now we have high knife crime, and we're dealing with it. Whatever comes along, we will deal with it - head on.

Problem is, you are not dealing with it. When you have that knife thing under control, next you will be looking at saps, blackjacks, cricket bats, canes, on down the line. Violence is not the cause of violence, if you are not addressing the underlying cause of the problem, or at least trying to identify it and have a dialog, you are not dealing with it.

[niuniu]

Originally Posted by Sydde

Problem is, you are not dealing with it. When you have that knife thing under control, next you will be looking at saps, blackjacks, cricket bats, canes, on down the line. Violence is not the cause of violence, if you are not addressing the underlying cause of the problem, or at least trying to identify it and have a dialog, you are not dealing with it.

UK crime is at it's lowest. Down 29% from 10 years ago.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datab...-england-wales

And it's not true we don't address causes. Government has always looked to the cause of crime. You deal with it from all ends. The UK took a particular interest in Australia's approach in the 2000's and developed many schemes based on Aus models and theories. Some failed. I'm privy to that because I worked in youth justice around then and got an inside look at how they put research and policy into action, in that one small area.

That's normal for all governments. Sociological research is well funded, some say over-funded in the UK.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by bradl

Also, you should know and have the ability to discern between "shoot to disable" and "shoot to kill". If you think your death is imminent, you should know the decision to make. otherwise, you would be going too far too fast.
.

I dont think anyone teaches shoot to disable...there is only "shooting to stop the threat" which means shooting center of mass...which usually means death to the person shot.

[bradl]

Originally Posted by glocke12

I dont think anyone teaches shoot to disable...there is only "shooting to stop the threat" which means shooting center of mass...which usually means death to the person shot.

Various police departments have taught that, as well as the federal agents I have come into contact with. LEOs, for sure, unless the situation became imminent that shooting to kill is justified.

BL.

[Squadleader]

Originally Posted by SiPi

This cant keep going on like this.

At some point the international community will have to step in and take action.

They can always try....That was tried twice...We have guns...

[prostuff1]

Originally Posted by bradl

Also, you should know and have the ability to discern between "shoot to disable" and "shoot to kill". If you think your death is imminent, you should know the decision to make. otherwise, you would be going too far too fast.

No conceal carry course teaches "shoot to disable". When you feel the need to pull your gun and have to fire it is ALWAYS shoot to kill. That means aiming at center mass so you have the best chance of stopping the target.

----------

Originally Posted by bradl

Various police departments have taught that, as well as the federal agents I have come into contact with. LEOs, for sure, unless the situation became imminent that shooting to kill is justified.

BL.

I have talked to a number of people in law enforcement, including family members, and they have told me that there train with handguns is a double tap to the body area and then a shot at the head.

My conceal carry course taught us to double tap to center of mass and repeat until the target was down and no longer posed a threat.