TargetTalk

Warren wrote:

Sadly this trajedy could happen at almost any college campus in the USA.

The Monash University shooting of a few years ago was done by a Chinese National who obtained a 1911 45 illegally. The media at the time claimed he was a licensed shooter, but seeing as he spoke not a work of English, this is garbage. That little incident led to the banning of a bunch of pistols and their latest round of buybacks in Australia.

He was a lisenced pistol shooter ( was a member of SSAA) and he used a CZ 9mm which remained legal after the buyback.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/ ... 20184.html

Fair enough Nev. I've been gone from Oz since 2000, and apparently my source got it all wrong. Has there been a trial as yet? I've got to admit, an article in The Age doesn't fill me with confidence they got everything straight - has there been any discussion within the SSAA about it?

Still goes to show - no matter where you are in the world, a nutter can cause a lot of grief.

And I KNOW that if you have the cash, even in Brisbane, find the right guy in the Valley and you can buy any number of illegal handguns.

Warren wrote: Has there been a trial as yet?

Yeap - after a jury trial he was found not guilty on the grounds of insanity (a "paranoid delusional disorder"). He was sentenced to spend up to 25 years in a high-security psychiatric hospital.

Warren wrote:Fair enough Nev. I've been gone from Oz since 2000, and apparently my source got it all wrong. Has there been a trial as yet? I've got to admit, an article in The Age doesn't fill me with confidence they got everything straight - has there been any discussion within the SSAA about it?

Still goes to show - no matter where you are in the world, a nutter can cause a lot of grief.

And I KNOW that if you have the cash, even in Brisbane, find the right guy in the Valley and you can buy any number of illegal handguns.

Hi Warren, yes there was a trial and as mentioned, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity etc.
The odd outcome of this shooting and the subsequent " Buy back " ( confiscation ) was that the gun used, 9mm, is still legal in Australia but anything of larger calibre ( except in special matches) is banned. I had my 45 pistol confiscated but 357 magnums were not, I would rather be shot by a 45 than a 357, go figure.

The ten rounds magazine limit on handguns in certain States of USA makes a lot of sense. However, the whole rationale behind the regulation blows up when you consider quick reloads through extra pre-loaded magazines (as was the case with the VT shooter who fired a total of 170 rounds, which is over 11 magazine reloads of the Glock 19).

IF you really want to enforce the regulation, here is an idea: How about an integral, non-removable magazine? What this will result in, is a slow, bullet-by-bullet reload of the built-in magazine rather than a quick replacement of pre-loaded ones. Shooters like the VT nut could possibly be overpowered during the process of reloading.

All those folks balking at the idea of yet another limit need to look at the middle ground this proposal offers. The defender gets a fair chance of firing 10 rounds in a 'situation'. A psycopath gets to fire 10 too, but that is 160 rounds less than what this VT mad-hat actually fired!

Let the law enforcers do the big magazine reloads; its their job. Let's not carry the American gun-craze to limitless extremes. And, let's not misuse the "right to bear arms" injunction of the 2nd Amendment without understanding the historical context of the ruling. Finally, remember that today's arms are far too lethal due to the advanced technology that was way beyond the imagination of the 2nd Amendment Fathers.

Airknight wrote:... here is an idea: How about an integral, non-removable magazine? ... All those folks balking at the idea of yet another limit need to look at the middle ground this proposal offers.

In the 60s, we used to have a saying, "You're either part of solution or part of the problem."

You're not part of the solution.

It sounds like you are unaware of how the 10 round magazine ban works. Magazines built after a certain date couldn't have a capacity of more than 10 rounds, unless for LEO use. The mags built after the ban date were stamped.

However, the law in no way made the tens of millions of existing >10 cap magazines illegal, they can still be bought and sold at will, perfectly legal.

It's not Air Knights idea alone that is frightening - its that it came from a member of the shooting sports.

God help us.

Anonymous wrote:It's not Air Knights idea alone that is frightening - its that it came from a member of the shooting sports. God help us.

My sentiments exactly. But of course, if, as his handle suggests, he only shoots air, it's not his ox being gored.

Back in the 1750s-1850s regular common folks used to discuss the fundamental issues of rights and power between the people and the state on a regular basis.

Now that we are "enlightened," we carry these huge assumptions and premises about these fundamental issues around like invisible force-fields against reason.

In the European model, power and rights flow from The State to The People according to the common weal.

In the U.S. model, the exact opposite is true- power and rights flow from The People and are only grudgingly loaned to The State in narrow circumstances.

We may both have tripartite governments and various forms of democracy, but the philosophies are grossly different. The philosophy exists in the belief systems and cultrue of the populations.

When the state can invoke "prior restraint" on a "right" it really isn't a right (as defined under U.S. philosophy) in the first place.

In other words- if you have to ask permission, it isn't a right.

Steve Swartz

(p.s. in neither the US nor European philosophy does The State have a duty to protect an individual citizen- "WORD UP!")

Airknight wrote:(as was the case with the VT shooter who fired a total of 170 rounds, which is over 11 magazine reloads of the Glock 19).

Gee! 11 magazine reloads! Plenty of time for one of several CCW's (carried legally by law abiding student and teachers), to be drawn and used to put an end to the carnage! Unlike here in North Carolina, Virginia has no law prohibiting the carrying of weapons on school property. The university took it upon themselves to prohibit them upon pain of expulsion. The proposed new law, would have prohibited shools from banning lawfully carried weapons. VT fought it, and it was defeated. I hope they're proud of themselves. In my mind, they're responsible for their actions.

I'm a retired New York City police officer, who has had more experience than I like to remember, regarding the cost of disarming law abiding citizens and turning them into easy prey.

Paul

Nicole Hamilton wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's not Air Knights idea alone that is frightening - its that it came from a member of the shooting sports. God help us.

My sentiments exactly. But of course, if, as his handle suggests, he only shoots air, it's not his ox being gored.

Not so - he says that he shoots a Walther SSP.
Aside from the philosophical issue, it is an idea the anti gunners would love. It would require the confiscation of all existing pistols and their replacement with a new design. Not to mention the confiscation of all revolver speedloaders. I used to love shooting IPSC/IDPA with a 6 shot revolver and found it didn't slow me down very much. Paul - depending on when you retired, I guess you were pretty adept with the old Bianchi rubber strips :-)

Fred

No Fred, I used HKS Speedloaders for my Det. Spl. But I carried a Browning HP as a backup most of the time. Guess which one was the first out?

Paul

Nicole Hamilton wrote: But of course, if, as his handle suggests, he only shoots air, it's not his ox being gored.

Nicole, good guess. I did shoot air with M61A-1 (20mm), NR-30 (30mm) and DEFA-552 (30mm), some years ago. Now I have stepped down to the more 'earthly' 9mm & .22LR.

And what's so frightening about a sports shooter's suggestion that someone (anonymous Guest) needs to invoke God's help? We are just discussing gun control here, with logic and reason. Don't stifle free speech, folks! Its open house.

Airknight wrote:We are just discussing gun control here, with logic and reason.

Some of us are. You propose only appeasement. Despite the fear-mongering of the gun-grabbers, there's very little evidence that gun violence is increased by any of the following:

- Semiautos (with practice and speedloaders, people can shoot pretty nearly as fast with revolvers),
- Full-autos (tightly controlled since 1934 and only 2 homicides ever committed since then with legally-owned full-auto guns, one of them by a police officer),
- High-capacity or removable magazines (when you even read a story about dozens and dozens of shots fired, it's usually the police doing the shooting and anyway, a bad guy could simply carry another gun to keep people at bay while he reloads),
- Evil-looking black rifles (they've always been a small fraction of all guns used in crime),
- Evil features like bayonet lugs (do I even need to explain this?),
- .50 caliber rifles (not a single known instance where one has ever been used in crime), and so on.

The way the gun-grabbers work is by the nibble. It's always about "reasonable compromises" to outlaw a few guns at a time. But the objective never changes: Outlaw all guns, a few at a time. Make no mistake, what you propose is the Neville Chamberlain "peace in our team" style of negotiation. It doesn't work except just to paint you as naive.

More to the point, the reason there were so many deaths at VT is because those same morons you want to "compromise" with are the ones who created the conditions which allowed it to happen. They created this killing field by doing except putting up a sign announcing that everyone there was unarmed and defenseless and inviting killers to come in and shoot them all.

I have to agree with Nicole here - appeasment is a futile exercise. It doesn't solve anything it just shows you are willing to cencede and give in to non-sensical demands. Give in an inch and they'll take a mile.

You need to have have rational arguments in place and defend shooting. Better still still demonstrate the positives. We pretty much lost the battle in the UK with our pistols by keeping quiet - appeasment would have acheived the same outcome.

Rob.

HI

For years the anti-gun group has had a very successful and not all that obvious strategy. They are willing to compromise, but they only compromise in their direction.

1. We are going to ban all of the guns.
NO
2. We'll COMPROMISE and only ban these guns.
Well OK
...
Next election
1. WE are going to ban all of these guns.
NO
2. We'll COMPROMISE and only ban these guns TOO.

They just keep taking more and more away. We should adopt this strategy, but move the other direction.

Later

Mike
Wichita KS

Air Knights solution is the typical, lets feed them my friends so they won't bother me. Make proposals that basically let him continue what HE wants to do while limiting what some of his fellow shooters in other disciplines would like to do (ie IPSC, IDPA, PPC to name a few. Just another example of the me generation. Like the poem says

They came first for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time no one was left to speak up.


or like John Hancock said "we must be unanimous [and] there must be no pulling different ways. We must all hang together.": "Yes, we must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." Benjamin Franklin

My Rant:
Anti-gun groups understand that they cannot accomplish all they wish to accomplish at one time. They understand that they must use an incremental approach, as in death by one thousand cuts. These anti-gun groups are overjoyed when gun owners say, gee, that piece of legislation seems reasonable, I will not therefore object. Then another school incident occurs, another piece of restrictive legislation is passed, and so on. Have no doubt that the aim of anti-gun groups is to restrict gun ownership to military and police agencies. The only reasonable chance for us to prevent this from happening is to draw a line in the sand. While this seems inflexible, it is the only way to protect our 2nd Amendment Rights.
Who are these anti-gun people, they are urban raised, narrow minded folks who think hamburger comes shrink wrapped from the supermarket store. They do not understand that the family farm is still providing the food that feeds our country. That hunting and fishing are a part of the rural/farming lifestyle. That there are many people in rural and remote areas of this country, who are able to feed their families only because they hunt.
Some of our fellow gun owners are just naive. We must help these people understand what is actually going on and ask them to lend us a hand. Doing nothing just validates the anti-gun incremental approach, that if left unchecked, will, and I repeat will lead to confiscation.

Pre-emptive apologies for preaching....

This thread is interesting and relevant, but it (pretty much) amounts to preaching to the choir. Just in case anyone here hasn't already done so, I'd urge you to contact your elected "representatives" with your views on this matter. At the same time, it's difficult to imagine that there's anyone on this board from the US who hasn't read editorials in their local paper urging "reasonable" gun controls. Has everyone here written at least one letter to the editor?

I frequent a couple of shooting-related discussion boards. In general, the people on this board are the most literate and articulate around. If we don't speak up now it's going to be too late too soon.

If you go to the following website you can get contact info. for your state and federal representatives: http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm

Write one letter, and cut-and-paste to emails to all of your representatives. 15 minutes of effort might just save your rights and your sport.