Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
But it isn't. It's an ex employee with a grudge, who is now a dead ex employee.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Shooting in New York hospital
- Thread starter Postman Pat
- Start date
But it isn't. It's an ex employee with a grudge, who is now a dead ex employee.
TSB
Captain Hindsight
There's something like 50-100 gun deaths in the US each day.
Pretty depressing how some can't resist resorting to their own fears/prejudices just because one made the news.
Pretty depressing how some can't resist resorting to their own fears/prejudices just because one made the news.
DavePage
Well-known member
New league guidelines for referees ?
Juan Albion
Chicken Sniffer 3rd Class
It was a doctor wot dunnit. Trump has now proposed banning all doctors. #MakingAmericaSafe
As there's no reason to score any more points against those on here shamefully apportioning blame before the fact, I've taken a look at the gun used.
It is reported as 'Police said the suspect was wearing a white medical coat when found. An assault rifle was also discovered nearby, which a local politician separately said appeared to be a military-grade M16 rifle'.
Wiki says of that rifle it has a rate of fire
12–15 rounds/min sustained
45–60 rounds/min semi-automatic
700–950 rounds/min cyclic
Up to 300m it has a 100% single-shot hit-probability.
At the same distance it can also shoot through both sides of a steel helmet.
The M16 was also the gun of choice for the SAS, in the Falklands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#M16
In answer to the question (which I'm sure has now caused a drone to be hovering over Stat Towers) 'Is it legal to buy an M16, in America' the answer would seem to be YES:-
Real assault rifles are capable of automatic firing. Therefore, they are regulated by the federal government as machine guns under the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 and the completely misnamed Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986. The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act entirely banned the new manufacture or importation of automatic weapons for civilian use. That left roughly 150,000 registered automatic weapons in private ownership and eligible for transfer between individuals. The transfer of such weapons is handled by the ATF's NFA branch. Basically, anyone wanting to legally own a fully automatic weapon needs $15,000 to over $40,000 to buy a weapon from an already licensed owner willing to sell one of theirs, plus pay a $200 federal transfer tax, plus pass a background investigation of National Agency Check with 10-point fingerprinting.
Here is what it takes to own a weapon capable of full auto
Pay a tax of $200, which in 1934 was worth over $3,500
Fill out a lengthy application to register your gun with the federal government
Submit photographs
Submit passport photos
Get your chief law enforcement official to sign your application
Wait for the results of your background check to come back
If you have the money the only drawback would seem to be a lengthy form.
(next time someone else can do t'internet search, I'm already in enough trouble by using Kodi)
It is reported as 'Police said the suspect was wearing a white medical coat when found. An assault rifle was also discovered nearby, which a local politician separately said appeared to be a military-grade M16 rifle'.
Wiki says of that rifle it has a rate of fire
12–15 rounds/min sustained
45–60 rounds/min semi-automatic
700–950 rounds/min cyclic
Up to 300m it has a 100% single-shot hit-probability.
At the same distance it can also shoot through both sides of a steel helmet.
The M16 was also the gun of choice for the SAS, in the Falklands.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_rifle#M16
In answer to the question (which I'm sure has now caused a drone to be hovering over Stat Towers) 'Is it legal to buy an M16, in America' the answer would seem to be YES:-
Real assault rifles are capable of automatic firing. Therefore, they are regulated by the federal government as machine guns under the Federal Firearms Act of 1934 and the completely misnamed Firearm Owners' Protection Act of 1986. The Firearm Owners’ Protection Act entirely banned the new manufacture or importation of automatic weapons for civilian use. That left roughly 150,000 registered automatic weapons in private ownership and eligible for transfer between individuals. The transfer of such weapons is handled by the ATF's NFA branch. Basically, anyone wanting to legally own a fully automatic weapon needs $15,000 to over $40,000 to buy a weapon from an already licensed owner willing to sell one of theirs, plus pay a $200 federal transfer tax, plus pass a background investigation of National Agency Check with 10-point fingerprinting.
Here is what it takes to own a weapon capable of full auto
Pay a tax of $200, which in 1934 was worth over $3,500
Fill out a lengthy application to register your gun with the federal government
Submit photographs
Submit passport photos
Get your chief law enforcement official to sign your application
Wait for the results of your background check to come back
If you have the money the only drawback would seem to be a lengthy form.
(next time someone else can do t'internet search, I'm already in enough trouble by using Kodi)
Off on a tangent but there are 5 deaths every day on British roads:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
How will banning guns make things better?
Its like saying welfare is wrong and stripping it away from single parents, there are so many criminally owned guns that it would disarm law abbiding citizens. This is a dead issue in the USA, I'm hearing it more in the UK as people want to be able to defend themselves.
Sounds like Johnny from Fantastic Four went nuts and tried to Flame On after shooting some doctors because they couldn't heal Stretch.
I've always been aware of that figure since I did a statistics project at school on road accidents. I have a feeling that back then, mid 90s, the figure was closer to 10. If my memory is correct that's quite a significant improvement.
To determine whether banning guns in the states would make things better I guess you'd have to look at how many deaths a year are from legally owned guns compared to illegally owned guns.
Allowing guns in this country will ensure that any future attack in this country where knives would have been used will instead be committed with guns and result in more deaths.
looney
Banned
- Jul 7, 2003
- 15,652
Thats been done, carry and conceal has had a massive deterence effect, which is why its not an issue for most.
QUOTE=The Optimist;8003140]
Allowing guns in this country will ensure that any future attack in this country where knives would have been used will instead be committed with guns and result in more deaths.[/QUOTE]
Maybe, but those deaths could well be assailants. We have also the reality of both rising gun crime with rising gun bans, like places in the USA like Chicago. There is a pattern but not the one you are alluding to.
Yep - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_Road_Casualties_Great_Britain
As consistent now as it was then.
I doubt I would have given much thought to the rebuttal of those figures:-
Suppression of activity by vulnerable road users[edit]
Another independent report challenged the government's claim that falling casualty rates meant that roads were becoming 'much safer'. Mayer Hillman, Professor John Adams and John Whitelegg suggest that roads may actually be felt to be sufficiently dangerous as to deter pedestrians from using them. They compared rates for those whose transport options are most limited, the elderly and children and found that:[21]
Britain's child pedestrian safety record is worse than the average for Europe, in contrast to the better than average all-ages figure.
Children's independent mobility is increasingly curtailed, with fear of traffic being cited as a dominant cause
Distances walked have declined more than in other European countries
Similar (though less well-defined) observations can be made regarding the elderly
Naturally I'd include cyclists into that as well.
Digression over - as you were.
Last edited:
Maybe, but those deaths could well be assailants. We have also the reality of both rising gun crime with rising gun bans, like places in the USA like Chicago. There is a pattern but not the one you are alluding to.[/QUOTE]
So you're saying that in the states there is so much illegal gun ownership that controlling legal gun ownership is just reducing the deterrent effect on the illegal gun holders and therefore making them more likely to use a gun. That does make sense. I'm not sure that this can be applied to the UK because we've got a completely different starting point.
Lies, damn lies and statistics! This reminds me a story from Bad Science by Ben Goldacre (at least I think that's where I read it) about newspaper headlines on cocaine use doubling in school children. When he looked into the statistics in the report we're indeed that it had been 1% and was now 2%, but all statistics in the report were given to a whole percentage point. The actual raw data was 1.4% and 1.9%. In addition it was only based on a small number of schools and as cocaine use is likely to be a group activity (what 15 year old goes off and takes coke on their own) it is even less likely to be statistically significant.
Only one person implied it might be a Muslim. I certainly didn't. I do think it's an interesting and thread worthy story. Not your usual redneck with a gun fetish shooting but an educated doctor who swore to "do no harm" going back to a hospital to take lives. Yes, I do think it's interesting but no t for the reasons anyone else has insinuated.
1 innocent doctor dead and 6 innocent people in critical condition.
Postman Pat
Well-known member
- Thread starter
- #39
It was breaking news, didn't know what it was going to turn into. Two shot and smoke in a hospital is significant isn't it?
Maybe ask BBC why it is a main story on their news?
Please let me know which subjects I am allowed to start threads on in future.
Ignore them. There's a few on here that regularly trawl the forum looking for threads where they have no interest in the subject matter but want to take the moral high ground over some imagined slight. They're pricks and don't deserve your time.
I found it an interesting story.