Student opens fire at California high school, wounding one
- Thread starter Sal
- Start date
Time to ban assault shotguns.
Seriously, this was a targeted attack, not at all the same as spree shootings.
It didn't help here that's for sure, guns cross state lines. What a mess. Where did he get the gun, at home? And how did the teacher get a pellet gun wound in the head? More questions than answers.
He still had access to a gun, yes it was targeted, who cares, he still wounded another student and would have done more if it had been an automatic, he had a list.
Wow.
I doubt his shotgun was smuggled across state lines.
Probably the teacher caught a pellet in a richocet........the kid was using light birdshot, it appears, as the victim was shot in the upper chest and is still alive.
"And would have done more if it had been an automatic"?????
They talked him out of the classroom.
He had every opportunity to shoot more.
You think that having an "automatic" makes you shoot people??
All in all a very silly post.
doubtful but you brought gun control into the post as though it didn't help here, which it didn't I merely said, guns can cross state lines.
It doesn't say that he was using light birdshot. It doesn't say anything about what the other student was shot with.
Absolutely.
They did.
No it allows you to shoot more people faster and with less effort.
Shot guns mean pellets. The teacher caught a stray pellet, or was close enough to the blast that his the kid, to be hit as well. the fact that more people weren't hit, means he was close when he shot him (pellet scatter gets wider the further away). Close, and shot with a shot gun, in order for him to still be alive I'd have to agree that it must be pretty light shot.
? it's kids shooting eachother. It's exactly what most people would think it is. Targeted, not targeted, a reason, no reason... it makes no difference. Someone snapped so hard they walked into school to kill people.
At first thought, I can't help but think that IF the US had our Canadian style gun control, then they might actually have our much lower violent crime and murder rates. It makes sense, right?ie if we limit the access to firearms in a Canadian way, and we can save lives, right?
But on second thought, maybe I'm full of **** because Canada's violent crime and murder rates were pretty damn good in the 70's BEFORE most of the canadian gun control laws were in place. Today, we have about 127 murders by firearm per year, in the 70's it was only about twice that. However, the US murders are through the roof. Even if you look at the per capita numbers, there is a significant difference between the 1970s canadian stats and the US.
I'm sorry, but I have to conclude that there is a driving force that is significantly more influential to violent crime and murder rates than gun control laws. If there has always been a significant difference between the US and Canada, then we are simply comparing apples to oranges.
If you want to compare apples with apples, look at Canadian long gun laws vs handgun laws, despite the stricter handgun laws and a significantly lower number of them in Canada, they are still used more often in crime.
Obviously, there is more to consider than more laws and more restrictions.
But on second thought, maybe I'm full of **** because Canada's violent crime and murder rates were pretty damn good in the 70's BEFORE most of the canadian gun control laws were in place. Today, we have about 127 murders by firearm per year, in the 70's it was only about twice that. However, the US murders are through the roof. Even if you look at the per capita numbers, there is a significant difference between the 1970s canadian stats and the US.
I'm sorry, but I have to conclude that there is a driving force that is significantly more influential to violent crime and murder rates than gun control laws. If there has always been a significant difference between the US and Canada, then we are simply comparing apples to oranges.
If you want to compare apples with apples, look at Canadian long gun laws vs handgun laws, despite the stricter handgun laws and a significantly lower number of them in Canada, they are still used more often in crime.
Obviously, there is more to consider than more laws and more restrictions.
It is very simple. The US has 10 times the population in a smaller land mass and has much bigger cities. Three words: crowded rat syndrome. Nothing to do with guns. Violence is big in cities and if they don't have guns, they will use whatever is available, like the guy who punched the guy to death on the subway last week.
Actually I saw an interesting youtube clip (maybe it was on here?) about crime stats, and one of the big things they talk about is population density being a huge contributing factor to violent crime. And since the US has many more cities than us with much higher population density, not just a bigger population, their crime rate is pretty much to be expected. I'll have to see if I can dig that one up.
For sure Cliffy, they're spending millions to educate the public about the evils of weapons while at the front they uphold the very pillars of democracy with weapons, and every year they demand more weapons. What kind of a fracked up example is that? The hysteria might, the media hopes, and their sponsers as well, incite the crisis necessary to enact Martial law under the Patriot Act. Drone strikes already take place on US soil. Easily blamed on gas explosions, faulty wiring or terrorists. It's a way out of debt for the bankers. The deceased don't get paid.