The Gun Control Debate Thread

[Major Harris]

I kind of like the five shot idea. Mentally, I think it'd be cool to go back to a 19th century model. Six shooters, single shot rifles, and shotguns.

Plenty powerful for self defense and hunting.

I always kind of thought that the 2nd amendment evolving with the weaponry was where this all went wrong.

[Burgold]

They managed to find ten whole cases and the one you found most apt occurred 23 years ago and not even in the United States.

Sounds like the number of times a good guy with a gun stopped a monster with a gun is pretty threadbare.

I'll give you another one (didn't click the link so it may be included). A number of years ago a neonazi went to the Holocaust Museum. He exchanged gunfire with a security guard. The guard died, but who knows how many lives he saved that day.

[FanboyOf91]

That's what we need, drunk people with guns.

 

In a night club!

[Larry]

10 Cases Where An Armed Citizen Took Down An Active Shooter

http://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2015/03/10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter/#10-cases-where-an-armed-citizen-took-down-an-active-shooter-2

 

Case Two, which took place in Cape Town, South Africa, in 1993. In that incident, four terrorists armed with fully automatic assault weapons and hand grenades attacked the Saint James Church. Their sudden, violent assault killed 11 victims and wounded 58. But a single armed citizen named Charl van Wyk was able to draw his personal carry gun, a five-shot snub-nosed .38 Special revolver, and open fire. He wounded one of the attackers, and all four were so jarred off their plan by this unexpected return of gunfire that they broke off the attack and fled.

"Case One": Charlie Hedbo. Killed two police officers, which the article says "According to some accounts, the police were unarmed". He then says "sources reporting shortly after the incident that they possessed AK-47s, a submachine gun, pistols, a shotgun and explosive devices." 

 

I wonder why he has to put disclaimers like that in front of his claims.  I have no clue whether those claims are true or not, but when I read things like that, it makes me really skeptical.  What those phrases say, to me, is "Warning:  I'm cherry picking my sources, so I can say this!" 

 

And in "case one" (which is actually two incidents), both incidents were ended by French police. 

 

"Case Three":.  Worker goes postal, and decapitates a woman.  No mention of what he was armed with, but I somehow suspect it wasn't a gun. 

 

"Case Four":  A school shooting.  The child shooter completed shooting everybody he wanted to shoot, and was leaving the scene, when he was confronted in the parking lot by an armed adult. 

 

More recent was Case Five, the Clackamas Mall shooting in Oregon, in which a psycho with a semi-automatic rifle opened fire. Nick Melli, a young man with security guard training and carrying a .40 pistol on a permit, drew and took aim at the gunman. Melli didn’t fire, for fear of hitting innocents behind the perpetrator, but the gunman at that point fled through an employees-only doorway and down an inside hall, where he then committed suicide. What could have been a high-casualty mass murder was apparently aborted by the mere sight of an armed citizen.

 

 

 

Wow.  The Good Guy With A Gun was so good, that the mere sight of him caused the "psycho" to run off and commit suicide. 

 

Or, maybe not. 

 

Oregon Live:  Clackamas Town Center shooting: Story of armed shopper fuels national debate

 

Lt. James Rhodes, Clackamas County Sheriff's Office spokesman, said investigators studied Meli's actions on Dec. 11, but drew no conclusions about how they affected the outome. He said mall surveillance videos showed Meli for only a few seconds and did document when Meli drew his gun. 

 

"Out of all the interviews we conducted, there is nothing that would make me corroborate or deny that he did anything," Rhodes said. "We have no information that the suspect's -- Roberts' -- actions were ever influenced by anything Mr. Meli did. But I also can't deny it."

 

 

 

Meanwhile, Meli's story appears to have slightly changed over time, a process that psychologists say may be unintentional. 

 

According to police reports, Meli's first contact with deputies took place as the search for Roberts was still unfolding inside Town Center. Responding sheriff's deputies saw he had pulled out his Glock .40-caliber semiautomatic handgun and was taking cover in Morgan Jewelers. After identifying himself as a security guard, he gave police information about the shooter. At that time, police reports indicate, he mentioned no confrontation with Roberts -- armed or otherwise. 

 

On Dec. 12, Meli told police he had taken a position behind a pillar near Morgan Jewelers and saw Roberts running past the Charlotte Russe clothing store. He said he then drew his gun, aimed at Roberts, but didn't fire because, "I did not want to miss and then him start shooting again." He also said he was afraid of hitting bystanders in Charlotte Russe. Roberts rifle jammed at about the same time. 

 

The following day, Meli twice gave police the same account, but added that Roberts looked at him and saw that he was in Meli's sights before running off -- a new twist on earlier versions.

 

 

 

I haven't checked out Cases 6 through 10.  But it looks like Cases one through five consist of exactly one case of a guy with a gun stopping an active shooter.  And that was in South Africa.  25 years ago. 

[No Excuses]

You have to be mentally ill to suggest people in clubs should

bring guns for safety.

It is hard to fathom that people even find this to be a legitimate point.

Can someone imagine DuPont Circle 18th St area full of dudes armed with hand guns? Yeah that'll keep everyone safe.

[Larry]

I always kind of thought that the 2nd amendment evolving with the weaponry was where this all went wrong.

 

Oh, not me. 

 

I want the Second to apply to individuals.  (I believe the lawyers who tell me that it didn't, for 200 years.  Although it sure reads, to me, like it does.  And, I want it to apply to individuals, so I'm happy with the ruling.) 

 

And I want it to apply to modern weapons.  Just like I don't think that Freedom of the Press only applies to hand set type. 

 

(At least, some modern weapons.  I think everybody can agree that the Second should apply to revolvers, for example.  And that it shouldn't apply to chain guns.  It's where to draw the line, in between those points, where I can see reasonable debate.) 

 

Where I really have a problem is this notion that there's no constitutional right to get on an airplane, cause airplanes weren't mentioned in the constitution, but that there is a constitutional right to AR-15s.  The (apparent) assertion that, over time, people's right to travel hasn't expanded with technology, but people's right to guns has. 

[Warhead36]

Yeah people keep saying "armed citizens can stop these shootings" but does that ever happen?

 

Need massive and I mean MASSIVE gun reform in this country but of course the NRA is way too powerful and the rednecks in this country are too obsessed with their guns. These type of shootings will keep happening and all we'll do is say our condolences but never actually make any change.

 

I don't wanna hear that guns don't kill people, because guns absolutely do kill people, that is exactly what they are made to do. Yes getting rid of guns would significantly reduce gun violence. But it won't happen here because people are too attached to the 2nd amendment, which is also a terrible argument. I mean we're talking about the same constitution that also used to allow slavery and disallow women from voting. 2nd amendment was for a completely different time.

[Chew]

You can get an ar-15 for under $500

nobody has a gun inside a club. Well, ones that frisk anyways...which might've made the club even more attractive for this nut job.

typical coward ****es, they like to shoot at people who can't shoot back.

Edited June 12, 2016 by Chew

[Larry]

You can get an ar-15 for under $500

nobody has a gun inside a club. Well, ones that frisk anyways...which might've made the club even more attractive for this nut job.

typical coward ****es, they like to shoot at people who can't shoot back.

 

Or he might have driven to a club that was 120 miles away because he wanted one that was full of gays. 

 

But no, he picked it because there weren't any gun-free bars that were closer than 120 miles. 

[Chew]

I'm aware he targeted the club because it was a gay spot....

Pulse is the most well known gay club in O-town, apparently

[Larry]

Pulse is the most well known gay club in O-town, apparently

I'll take your word for it.

[twa]

 

 

or you could go with twa's argument...

 

Well, the good guys guns weren't powerful enough to compete with the bad guy's guns. Clearly, the good guys need to be armed with bigger and badder guns it would have been stopped because clearly the good guys guns were of the non lethal, non bad guy stopping variety.

 

Frankly, the obvious solution would have been to have a robot controlled machine gun nest set into the ceiling. Then, the robots could have taken out anything it decided was a threat.

 

that wasn't my argument  

 

though a remote controlled firearm in public places could be handy....till they hack them 

a single armed guard is easily dispatched .....actually kinda odd there wasn't more armed security at such a large gathering  imo

[DogofWar1]

While a mag limit wouldn't prevent everything, it allows more of a chance for something to be done.  Every time a mag is changed, there is a chance for error.  It allows a few seconds for someone to try to stop the person.  You also can only carry so many mags so you would have to get mags out of a bag.  A mag limit would help a little and has more of a chance of passing than your "everything needs to be bolt action" idea.

 

Go ahead and try to lump me into the "clueless about guns" crowd.  I dare you.

 

Yeah, I agree.

 

Let's assume we capped magazines at 6 bullets.  AR-15 standard magazines are usually 20-30 bullets, right?

 

So 4-6 magazines to get to the same number of bullets as a standard clip.  Whatever time frame for changing said clip he has is increased 400-600%.  Even if he's well trained and quick, we're talking about going from a couple seconds for a swap to 10-20 seconds, assuming all 4-6 clips are close at hand.  If he has to go into a bag, that increases even further.

 

Just spitballing numbers, let's pretend this guy had 100% accuracy, and fired exactly 103 bullets over the course of the shooting.  If we assume he had five 20-round clips (we'll spot him the last 3, maybe a handgun he had), and firing rate was semi-automatic, he has to change clips 4 times.

 

With 6 bullet clips, to get to 100 bullets, he'd need 17 clips, 3.4X the number he'd need before.  He'd need to change clips 16 times, spending 4 times the amount of time changing clips, and that's assuming all clips are as available as before (unlikely, far more likely he'd need to go into a bag at some point).

 

That's a lot of extra time.  Time for the armed guards in the club to respond.  Time for people to run or take cover.  If the guy has to go into a bag, time perhaps for him to be tackled while he wrestles with the bag.

 

With unlimited time, sure, the damage is unlimited, but that's true of every firearm ever invented.

 

As Buzz says, it wouldn't prevent everything.  Consider that "mass shooting" is usually either 4 casualties or 4 fatalities (Mass Shooting Tracker uses casualties, FBI uses fatalities).  A 6 bullet clip won't prevent all of those.  But it does increase the time frame needed to inflict harm, so a shooting of 9, 14, 50 people, etc., requires significantly more time to carry out.  And that probably saves at least some lives.

[tshile]

He was there for three hours before the police intervened.

[Bacon]

He was there for three hours before the police intervened.

I'm still baffled that this was the case. How??

[Larry]

He was there for three hours before the police intervened.

How many shots did he fire, after the first cop arrived on scene? (And how long did that take, ten minutes?)

(Hint: If the answer is anything other than "zero", my response is going to be "And the cop(s) just stood in the parking lot and listened to the gunfire coming from inside?")

Edited June 13, 2016 by Larry

[tshile]

I'm still baffled that this was the case. How??

It sounds like they thought they were working with a hostage situation. Turned out they weren't.

In my opinion we shouldn't be quick to judge them for that... you have to worry about hostages, your own men (apparently he had explosives?), there's procedures etc. Hard to know if they did anything 'wrong'

How many shots did he fire, after the first cop arrived on scene? (And how long did that take, ten minutes?)

(Hint: If the answer is anything other than "zero", my response is going to be "And the cop(s) just stood in the parking lot and listened to the gunfire coming from inside?")

Have they released that information?

[DogofWar1]

He was there for three hours before the police intervened.

 

Yes, but from the facts so far it seems as though the vast majority of the damage occurred in a short time frame at the start.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/13/us/orlando-shooting-what-we-know-and-dont-know.html

 

 

 

What Happened?

• Mr. Mateen opened fire inside the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, a popular gay club, at about 2 a.m. He was armed with an AR-15-style assault rifle and a handgun.

• Mr. Mateen shot about one-third of the people in the packed club. Hundreds of panicked clubgoers escaped and fled into the streets.

• Mr. Mateen holed up inside the club during the attack and effectively held dozens of people hostage. Some of them hid in a restroom and frantically texted friends and family for help.

• Mr. Mateen was killed by a police SWAT team when it raided the building at about 5 a.m. with an armored vehicle and stun grenades. One police officer was wounded, and at least 30 people were rescued.

[Larry]

It sounds like they thought they were working with a hostage situation. Turned out they weren't.

In my opinion we shouldn't be quick to judge them for that... you have to worry about hostages, your own men (apparently he had explosives?), there's procedures etc. Hard to know if they did anything 'wrong'

Agreed.

[Commander PK]

I'm sorry some hateful nutcase used one to kill a bunch of people with his, but its not going to make me get rid of mine .

Nor should you. At some point I have to believe that common sense will prevail and people will see this situation for what it is...good people turning in their guns or being prevented from buying them will not stop bad people from getting and using them against innocent people.

There is nothing on this earth that could EVER convince me that making potential victims out of good people is the way we should go to deal with this problem.

There is no reasonable gun legislation that would have prevented this tragedy.

[Larry]

Right.

Suck it up, America, because it is simply a rule of nature that you will endure gun deaths in your country that are ten times higher than the entire rest of the civilized world.  And there is no fact you can possibly point out that will ever make me change my opinion.  (That I will permit nothing to be done about this.) 

 

The mere fact that the rest of the civilized world has a gun death rate that's 1/10 of ours does not in any way change my opinion that absolutely nothing can be done about it, here. 

 

So shut up and get used to it. 

[TradeTheBeal!]

Nor should you. At some point I have to believe that common sense will prevail and people will see this situation for what it is...good people turning in their guns or being prevented from buying them will not stop bad people from getting and using them against innocent people.

There is nothing on this earth that could EVER convince me that making potential victims out of good people is the way we should go to deal with this problem.

There is no reasonable gun legislation that would have prevented this tragedy.

No?

How bout this.

Guy twice investigated by FBI as Isis sympathizer goes to purchase a weapon.

Background check flags him for a 10 day waiting period.

During the intervening 10 days, he is detained and interviewed extensively to determine his reasons for attempting to purchase a weapon and significant amounts of ammunition.

Still think this incident takes place? I don't think it does...not to this degree.

[Bacon]

Right.

Suck it up, America, because it is simply a rule of nature that you will endure gun deaths in your country that are ten times higher than the entire rest of the civilized world. And there is no fact you can possibly point out that will ever make me change my opinion. (That I will permit nothing to be done about this.)

The mere fact that the rest of the civilized world has a gun death rate that's 1/10 of ours does not in any way change my opinion that absolutely nothing can be done about it, here.

So shut up and get used to it.

We just pay a higher price for freedom, that's all. And the weekly homicidal maniac is a small price to pay to live in the land of liberty!!

Edited June 13, 2016 by Bacon

[Commander PK]

I'm sorry the truth hurts Larry. The cat has been out of the bag a long time.

I'm not prepared to give up my constitutional right or yours because bad things happen.

I also find it interesting that many here who would normally be screaming "due process!!" for anyone charged with a crime...now think somebody who is on a FBI watch list should not be allowed to buy a gun. Where is your due process now? Mere suspicion costs you your constitutional rights?

Before this horrific massacre occurred if this killer was just a law abiding citizen of middle eastern descent and they had prevented him from buying a gun for being on the FBI's watch list...several of you would be screaming profiling and racism.

No?

How bout this.

Guy twice investigated by FBI as Isis sympathizer goes to purchase a weapon.

Background check flags him for a 10 day waiting period.

During the intervening 10 days, he is detained and interviewed extensively to determine his reasons for attempting to purchase a weapon and significant amounts of ammunition.

Still think this incident takes place? I don't think it does...not to this degree.

What makes you think this new interview goes any different than the first two? What are they going to prove? Should this minority be denied his rights even if they can't prove anything conclusive?

Slippery slope?

Any other time they would call that 'racial profiling'

[TradeTheBeal!]

What makes you think this new interview goes any different than the first two? What are they going to prove? Should this minority be denied his rights even if they can't prove anything conclusive?

Slippery slope?Any other time they would call that 'racial profiling'

Really? I'm sure there's all kinds of folks on no-fly lists and I don't recall a single instance of anyone in the tailgate complaining about that.

BTW, I just booked the HellBent for Hollywood Judas Priest Rock Fantady Camp for August...thought you might find that interesting. \mm/