The Gun Control Debate Thread

[LadySkinsFan]

I'd add ban on high capacity magazines. If someone does a shoot 'an up, they'll have to stop and reload, giving someone a chance to stop the shooter.

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

8 minutes ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I'd add ban on high capacity magazines. If someone does a shoot 'an up, they'll have to stop and reload, giving someone a chance to stop the shooter.

 

Yes, thanks for remembering this.  I was in full rant mode when I made my post and forgot about the magazine/clips capacity also being an issue.  Along with being able to track how much ammo someone purchases.  If they can track and limit the purchase of my ****ing allergy meds (Mucinex D), they can do the same for ammo, etc.  

 

I'm just tired about all the ****ing I read on the internet, social media, from my friends on Facebook, pointing fingers and blaming one party or the other.  Or posting irrelevant **** or memes like, "When I was in high school most trucks had gun racks with shotguns/rifles in them, parked in the high school parking lot and nobody ever shot up our school"  or "People that are shooting up the schools are the same generation that's eating laundry detergent (tide pods) or "This is a [insert semi-automatic rifle that looks like a standard rifle name here] with a magazine capacity of [insert quantity] and this is an AR-15 with [insert specs], you want to ban this one because it looks menacing and not the other which is actually more dangerous."

 

 

 

It's driving me nuts!  all of that is irrelevant to what is going on, which is children getting killed, at ****ing school.  And instead of doing anything about it, both parties just sit around pointing fingers or ****ing about each other.  That could happen at my kids school, or your kids school, or grandkids, nieces/nephews, etc.  and it's scary as hell.  

[LD0506]

[visionary]

 

 

Today....

[Momma There Goes That Man]

6 hours ago, Kosher Ham said:

Stop being that guy...

 

Hmm...who is that directed at ? 

 

 

Hopefully you

1 hour ago, LD0506 said:

 

Rocket launchers don’t kill people. People kill people. The problem is people. 

 

When can I go buy my rocket launcher ? 

[Larry]

6 hours ago, Kosher Ham said:

Stop being that guy...

 

Hmm...who is that directed at ? 

 

 

That guy.  

 

[bearrock]

2 minutes ago, Momma There Goes That Man said:

 

When can I go buy my rocket launcher ? 

 

Did you check next to the nuclear weapons aisle?  Or was it out in the lot with the tanks?  I always forget.

[Sacks 'n' Stuff]

2 hours ago, Larry said:

That guy.

I went to school with him. He lived in the same dorm.

[TheGreatBuzz]

6 hours ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

To me, it should no longer be a party issue.....it's an innocent kids and people getting killed issue and both parties need to sack up and work together to figure this out and at least try to do something to limit this **** from happening.  I'm a gun owner, but I'm also a liberal.  I have no issues with any of the following happening, and no responsible gun owner should, imo:

 

1.  Full out ban on bump stocks - obvious reasons why

2.  Raise the age limit on purchasing all firearms to 21 (or at a minimum for all semi-automatic firearms including rifles).

3.  Require all firearms (or at least all semi-automatic firearms in the beginning) to require applying for a license/permit (like they do for hand guns now)

4.  Unless in a profession that requires the use of a handgun (law enforcement, private security, etc.) raise the age to purchase handguns and all semi-automatic firearms to say 25 or 26 years old.

5.  Make a requirement that all firearms be registered - would have to be going forward.

6.  Require all purchases of firearms at gun shows, go through background checks and require permits/licenses (as listed above).  

7.  Outright ban on all assault rifles - this probably won't happen, but honestly, as a gun owner myself, there is no logical need to own one, except "it's cool" or "they are fun to shoot".  

 

None of the above impact second amendment rights, just restrict access and provide some additional barricades to overcome.  It is our right to bear arms, but nowhere does it say that right can't have some checks/balances in place to drag out the process.  None of the above impact your right to defend your home, but I'm sure some will argue that not being able to purchase a shotgun before 21 years of age, delays protecting one's home if that person decides to live on their own after they graduate high school.  But, its only three years longer.  

 

 

I would like  to give my opinion on this.  #7 I would want more details on (the old "assault weapon" ban was a joke) but I probably wouldn't support it.  I would give #1-6 in exchange for some form of national firearm reciprocity law.  So states like MD and CA can't have, what I consider to be, over reaching gun restrictions. 

6 hours ago, LadySkinsFan said:

I'd add ban on high capacity magazines. If someone does a shoot 'an up, they'll have to stop and reload, giving someone a chance to stop the shooter.

Doubtful you would get me onboard for this.  Maybe a limit of 30 or so.  I could see banning drum mags.

 

Sorry I seem to bounce in and out but I am limited by my connectivity.  After reading the last few pages, I am seeing many people in here doing the same thing they usually blame others of doing.  The old "if it doesn't 100% fix everything without any flaws, we won't consider it".  Every consider some teachers are former military?  Maybe allow teachers who are willing to get private training and supply their own small safe to carry a gun?  Surely there is some middle ground.  But instead lets just point out a single hypothetical flaw and toss the whole idea. 

 

As for the picture above about hunting with an "assault rifle", I know plenty of people who hunt with an AR or similar rifle.  They come in popular calibers used in hunting.  There really is no reason you can't use one unless you are big game hunting at extreme distances.  Just one more person with no clue what they are talking about.

[LadySkinsFan]

I keep my revolver for self defense, 5 shot. If I can't protect myself with five bullets, then I shouldn't have it.

 

If someone can't bring down game with bolt action rifles, then they should improve their skills, not have a high capacity military style rifle.

[twa]

If you can't do the job with your bare hands and teeth you shouldn't have a gun.

[Burgold]

 

[twa]

Just now, Burgold said:

 

What's funny is there was a study on police academy trained, military trained and novices

 

at close range with handguns the novices with basic instruction scored more headshots(did someone mention body armor) and were not that much different at all distances up to 25 yrds, with military scoring best

 

of course NYPD requires using a 12 pound trigger pull which is twice as hard as most,and most definitely hurts accuracy, and most cops are taught to shoot at mass.

 

not sure what your point is  are you saying armed cops are the danger when responding to a school shooting?

The average police officer is not a marksman, yet ya'll tell me my kids (which are expert shots) are more a danger .

 

the world is nuts

[Burgold]

Point is much simpler. The point is that if people who are trained and for whom one of their primary job skills is using a firearm are so inaccurate, then a weekend training course at a firing range shooting at still targets isn't getting a teacher up to speed. More bluntly put, arming teachers would be a PR stunt and not a solution. It's a gimmick designed to make people buy into the illusion of safety without making them any safer.

[twa]

Just now, Burgold said:

Point is much simpler. The point is that if people who are trained and for whom one of their primary job skills is using a firearm are so inaccurate, then a weekend training course at a firing range shooting at still targets isn't getting a teacher up to speed. More bluntly put, arming teachers would be a PR stunt and not a solution. It's a gimmick designed to make people buy into the illusion of safety without making them any safer.

 

NYPD is so inaccurate because your kind of genius makes accuracy more difficult, and want to mandate it elsewhere.

I certainly recommend a different training than most police academy used, but ya'll aren't interested in training.

 

 

 

Quote

 

The New York City Police Department purposefully issues their officers handguns with extremely heavy triggers to try and deter them from using their firearms, but as a side effect the officers are wildly inaccurate and tend to hit innocent bystanders.

Seeing the clear positive impact of heavy triggers among the NYPD, New York Democrats are trying to mandate the same thing be done to every civilian firearm in the state.

The bill currently under consideration, S3444, is ostensibly designed to keep children under five years old from being able to operate a firearm. It demands that all firearms sold within the state include mechanisms to prevent children from firing the firearm. 

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/05/foghorn/ny-democrats-introduce-mandatory-trigger-pull-weight-bill/

 

 

 

[AsburySkinsFan]

Arming teachers....

 

[twa]

So you are saying cops unfamiliar with the people in the school would do better despite your story of cops shooting a hero kid.

 

how do you come to that conclusion

add

Let's continue with your visual aid, two people with guns pointed at each other what do you think the cops would do?

 

a sane one demands they both drop their weapons and shoots the one that turns the gun on them.

 

what would be your reaction?

 

further added

 

In your example a shooter is being stopped unless you believe the armed staff are going to be squaring off against each other....is that your assertion?

 

not that I expect a answer.

Edited February 20, 2018 by twa

[PeterMP]

2 hours ago, twa said:

What's funny is there was a study on police academy trained, military trained and novices

 

at close range with handguns the novices with basic instruction scored more headshots(did someone mention body armor) and were not that much different at all distances up to 25 yrds, with military scoring best

 

of course NYPD requires using a 12 pound trigger pull which is twice as hard as most,and most definitely hurts accuracy, and most cops are taught to shoot at mass.

 

not sure what your point is  are you saying armed cops are the danger when responding to a school shooting?

The average police officer is not a marksman, yet ya'll tell me my kids (which are expert shots) are more a danger .

 

the world is nuts

 

Cops are better than novices at every distance.  Not significantly better at 3-15 feet, but that's only because everybody's numbers are high.  

 

http://www.forcescience.org/articles/naiveshooter.pdf

 

Miami isn't doing any better (numbers as low as 19%) 

 

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

 

In the same link, in LA it is 51% with one police shooter, but if you get more than one cop shooting, it goes way down and the number of shots/person goes up so way more chances of missing.

 

(I already commented on this, but to me there are 2 things:

 

1.  If a teacher wants to have a gun, they need more training then the average cop.  They need regular (monthly?) training and (psych) screening.

 

2.  The teacher doesn't leave the room they are in.  They shouldn't be "hunting" the shooter.  They still "shelter in place".  If the shooter comes to them, they have a means of defense.)

Edited February 20, 2018 by PeterMP

[GoDeep81]

2 hours ago, Burgold said:

More bluntly put, arming teachers would be a PR stunt and not a solution. It's a gimmick designed to make people buy into the illusion of safety without making them any safer.

I don't know about that. Just hardening the target could deter a mass shooter even trying it in the first place? Best case is a teacher/security guard puts him down, but highly unlikely. Worst case, an(other) innocent gets shot by said teacher/security guard. More reasonable expectation is you could (possibly) end a confrontation sooner than waiting on police to get there. 

[PeterMP]

1 hour ago, twa said:

So you are saying cops unfamiliar with the people in the school would do better despite your story of cops shooting a hero kid.

 

how do you come to that conclusion

add

Let's continue with your visual aid, two people with guns pointed at each other what do you think the cops would do?

 

a sane one demands they both drop their weapons and shoots the one that turns the gun on them.

 

what would be your reaction?

 

further added

 

In your example a shooter is being stopped unless you believe the armed staff are going to be squaring off against each other....is that your assertion?

 

not that I expect a answer.

 

Cops lots of times do things they aren't supposed to do.  It isn't unpreditable that two people with guns will shoot at one another without knowing who they are shooting at.

 

Even in the military (experts), people are killed by "friendly fire" and certainly cops have shot other cops.

2 hours ago, twa said:

What's funny is there was a study on police academy trained, military trained and novices

 

at close range with handguns the novices with basic instruction scored more headshots(did someone mention body armor) and were not that much different at all distances up to 25 yrds, with military scoring best

 

of course NYPD requires using a 12 pound trigger pull which is twice as hard as most,and most definitely hurts accuracy, and most cops are taught to shoot at mass.

 

not sure what your point is  are you saying armed cops are the danger when responding to a school shooting?

The average police officer is not a marksman, yet ya'll tell me my kids (which are expert shots) are more a danger .

 

the world is nuts

 

Nobody is telling you your kids are more of a danger.  Nobody knows your kids.  People are telling you the average teacher is likely to be more of a danger.  The average teacher is not your kid.  Reading comprehension is valuable.

Edited February 20, 2018 by PeterMP

[LD0506]

I'm tired of all the mealy-mouthed horse**** that passes for discussion these days. There is a distinct, clear, overt demographic that is absolutely ok with children being slaughtered as long as they can continue to self-medicate their penile insufficiency with guns. This **** is evil, pure and simple (heavy on the simple apparently)

 

Quote

Such was the case when Fox News fans and Rush Limbaugh went after the teens late last week. Tuesday, CNN’s Alisyn Camerota held Kingston’s feet to the fire for a tweet alleging liberal funder George Soros and anti-fascist protesters are the real organizers behind the movement and using the teens as props.

 

https://www.rawstory.com/2018/02/cnns-alisyn-camerota-calls-bs-jack-kingstons-claim-parkland-teens-left-wing-pawns/

 

[twa]

32 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Cops are better than novices at every distance.  Not significantly better at 3-15 feet, but that's only because everybody's numbers are high.  

 

 

1.  If a teacher wants to have a gun, they need more training then the average cop.  They need regular (monthly?) training and (psych) screening.

 

2.  The teacher doesn't leave the room they are in.  They shouldn't be "hunting" the shooter.  They still "shelter in place".  If the shooter comes to them, they have a means of defense.)

 

I certainly agree they need different training that is better suited for the role expected, and have said so.(and it is available)

nor do they need long gun training that cops get unless you plan to arm them with them)

 

I agree on staying put or if the building supports it positioning at choke points(most here have fire doors), only highly trained should take on hunting down a shooter(as I have said) if they have students to protect

 

those things will reduce the area cops need to clear, while offering a measure of protection to students....and faster clear time means faster medical aid to any wounded.(which is critical)

 

[twa]

41 minutes ago, PeterMP said:

 

Cops lots of times do things they aren't supposed to do.  It isn't unpreditable that two people with guns will shoot at one another without knowing who they are shooting at.

 

Even in the military (experts), people are killed by "friendly fire" and certainly cops have shot other cops.

 

Nobody is telling you your kids are more of a danger.  Nobody knows your kids.  People are telling you the average teacher is likely to be more of a danger.  The average teacher is not your kid.  Reading comprehension is valuable.

 

Taking up a gun comes with risk, just as trying to disarm someone with one or stop the bullets they are firing.

 

People IGNORE I have repeatedly said trained and vetted,WHILE telling me NO level of training is sufficient....One of mine is in teaching now..

reading comprehension is indeed valuable, taking positions reason does not support is not.(not addressed to you)

[DogofWar1]

Arm teachers in schools, and they'll target the fields with afterschool activites going on, or a bus at the first bus stop after school lets out, or the nearby safeway or mcdonalds that kids go to after school.

 

Ultimately, these shooters generally plan things fairly well.  They are often not too quiet about it, and there are usually indicators that become obvious after the fact, but the FBI cannot possibly get to 100% of cases.

 

Attempting to eliminate the first-mover problem is likely futile.  We may be able to limit damage in a percentage of cases, but realistically you cannot eliminate the first-mover advantage without completely wrecking the mission of the school.  You'd have to turn schools into fortresses, which will drastically increase costs (which already makes the whole idea legislatively improbable) and will undercut any risky activities, like all sports, which, given the plethora of studies showing well rounded students do better, will drastically undercut the academic mission of the school if it could even be done.  Even then, we likely simply displace the shooting to elsewhere.

 

The best option is almost certainly to increase SROs but that would undoubtedly be extremely expensive and probably have diminishing returns after a point.

 

The best chokepoint is at or before the point of purchase.

[Burgold]

1 hour ago, GoDeep81 said:

I don't know about that. Just hardening the target could deter a mass shooter even trying it in the first place? Best case is a teacher/security guard puts him down, but highly unlikely. Worst case, an(other) innocent gets shot by said teacher/security guard. More reasonable expectation is you could (possibly) end a confrontation sooner than waiting on police to get there. 

I don't think it's hardening the school at all. I think it's adding risk to the environment. As I said  before, I was a teacher. I couldn't imagine pulling my gun let alone using it on a student. I can easily imagine a hormone enraged teenager stealing my gun or getting it off me and causing great harm.

 

Each and everyone of us who went to a middle school or high school have seen teens lose it. You really want to provide them access to weapons? 

 

Giving guns to teachers is at best a PR stunt to increase the illusion of safety. At worse, it creates more tragedies. My bet's on the latter especially as the Devos/Trump budge continues to slash money to schools, mental health services, and everything else which suggests to me that the teacher is out of pocket for any training or safety equipment.