What's new

Thoughts and Prayers

You want to hold off a mob by spaying with 30ish bullets as opposed to 10ish? The mob is still charging you after you discharge 7 bullets, but stops after 27?

Welcome back!

Higher capacity magazines don't have to be changed as often, so yes, having 30 round clips is a much more efficient deterrent.

We had a magazine size ban on new purchases from Bill Clinton but it expired. I bought 2 25 round clips for a .22LR that were current inventory and still legally available to buy. They connect together and I have 50 rounds quickly available. Of course, a .22LR is more of a recreational gun than anything, and not a very good gun to hold off mobs, but it demonstrates the point. I could have 6 clips holding 150 bullets instead of 15 clips holding 150 bullets and requiring 2.5x the amount of clip changing.

I do think new sales of AR-15's and the sort will be outlawed eventually. But, as others have pointed out, a handgun is probably more efficient in a school shooting than an "assault rifle", so nothing would change. IMO we need to spend the $9 or $10 billion or whatever to put a police officer in every school (90,000 schools x $100,000 total per officer, plus gear and a squad car). That would be a great place to start.
 
I find this to a curious assumption. I think it would depend on the president, the current social climate and the reason. And even then I would expect some gun owners to resist. A healthy percentage, if not a majority, in fact.

I don't know any gun owner in real life, so I could be wrong. Describe a scenario where the majority of gun owners you know would not support martial law. Who's the President, what's the current social climate, what's the pretext?
 
Welcome back!

Higher capacity magazines don't have to be changed as often, so yes, having 30 round clips is a much more efficient deterrent.

In what situation? A good deterrent in one situation can be completely ineffective in another. So, I am curious which situations you are preparing for, where 30 is much more effective than 10.

franklin said:
I do think new sales of AR-15's and the sort will be outlawed eventually. But, as others have pointed out, a handgun is probably more efficient in a school shooting than an "assault rifle", so nothing would change. IMO we need to spend the $9 or $10 billion or whatever to put a police officer in every school (90,000 schools x $100,000 total per officer, plus gear and a squad car). That would be a great place to start.

Well, some schools will need multiple officers (my kids high school has two physically distinct campuses).

More importantly, this latest shooting took place over 6 minutes. How many lives could a police presence have realistically saved?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVP
I don't know any gun owner in real life, so I could be wrong. Describe a scenario where the majority of gun owners you know would not support martial law. Who's the President, what's the current social climate, what's the pretext?

Most scenarios tbh.

Martial law would entail the severe restriction of freedoms and privileges. It could be due to mass attacks, gun confiscation, a plague...many gun owners have a self reliant streak a mile long and would resent the curfews imposed. Some would fight back. See the increasing number of militias.

Keep in mind that gun owners do not exist in a vacuum. They are subject to the social perceptions and opinions of their local communities.

For example in the mountain west there is a decided pro LEO but anti gov. streak. (See The Bundys and the Idaho militias)

Where as in many poor inner cities communities there is a healthy anti LEO presence.

Gun owners come from across most of the ideological spectrum and as such they will be divided along the spectrum depending on the issue.

Now, let's say the martial law was imposed due to the invasion of a foreign country. Then I assume that most gun owners would be in support to various degrees.
 
In what situation? A good deterrent in one situation can be completely ineffective in another. So, I am curious which situations you are preparing for, where 30 is much more effective than 10.

I'm not preparing for anything. I simply stated a very obvious fact.

More importantly, this latest shooting took place over 6 minutes. How many lives could a police presence have realistically saved?

You know there is no answer to that question. He could be in the right place at the right time or not. But you don't think the presence of an officer alone would be a good deterrent? What about having multiple officers or even volunteers that have to pass a background check and psych evaluation?
 
do sth America. sick of this **** happening over and over.

It will happen again and again and again.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MVP
I'm not preparing for anything. I simply stated a very obvious fact.



You know there is no answer to that question. He could be in the right place at the right time or not. But you don't think the presence of an officer alone would be a good deterrent? What about having multiple officers or even volunteers that have to pass a background check and psych evaluation?

Not advocating for it but it is something I have heard.

Place up to 3 armed vets in every school.
 
I'm not preparing for anything. I simply stated a very obvious fact.

It seems obvious to me that the amount of advantage is situational, and the noticeably advantageous situations are rare. Is there a reason I am wrong on this?

franklin said:
You know there is no answer to that question. He could be in the right place at the right time or not. But you don't think the presence of an officer alone would be a good deterrent? What about having multiple officers or even volunteers that have to pass a background check and psych evaluation?

Were I planning a mass shooting, with knowledge of the presence of an armed officer, I would include that knowledge in my planning. I think people overestimate their abilities to plan for these things. So, I see the deterrent effect as minimal.
 
I would guess that an armed guard wouldn't be overly effective as a deterrent to many of these folks who seem at least somewhat suicidal.
 
Remembered this video. Would need to change it from liberal to NRA or gun supporters in USA and it would be spot on.
 
It seems obvious to me that the amount of advantage is situational, and the noticeably advantageous situations are rare. Is there a reason I am wrong on this?

Small correction: I said deterrent when I meant defense. Guns are used for self defense much more often than you would think. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/91da/afbf92d021f06426764e800a4e639a1c1116.pdf I don't think 10 rounds is sufficient to defend against anything more than 2 people. If 3 men were to break into my house then I'd want the full 16 in my clips.

Were I planning a mass shooting, with knowledge of the presence of an armed officer, I would include that knowledge in my planning. I think people overestimate their abilities to plan for these things. So, I see the deterrent effect as minimal.

Or, as gun advocates would add, you'd find another method. You could mow them down just as easily at recess around here. I don't know if it truly would help but I'm willing to give it a try. Do we have any numbers on shootings at guarded schools (43% of public and private) vs. non-guarded schools?

Suicidal psychopaths suck.
 
Welcome back!

Higher capacity magazines don't have to be changed as often, so yes, having 30 round clips is a much more efficient deterrent.

We had a magazine size ban on new purchases from Bill Clinton but it expired. I bought 2 25 round clips for a .22LR that were current inventory and still legally available to buy. They connect together and I have 50 rounds quickly available. Of course, a .22LR is more of a recreational gun than anything, and not a very good gun to hold off mobs, but it demonstrates the point. I could have 6 clips holding 150 bullets instead of 15 clips holding 150 bullets and requiring 2.5x the amount of clip changing.

I do think new sales of AR-15's and the sort will be outlawed eventually. But, as others have pointed out, a handgun is probably more efficient in a school shooting than an "assault rifle", so nothing would change. IMO we need to spend the $9 or $10 billion or whatever to put a police officer in every school (90,000 schools x $100,000 total per officer, plus gear and a squad car). That would be a great place to start.

Not sure cops and kids are the best mix.
I had three cops at my school and they seemed to cause more harm than good.
 
Not sure cops and kids are the best mix.
I had three cops at my school and they seemed to cause more harm than good.

There are articles on this. I think we can dig in and come up with a solution though. Maybe cops that only patrol or cover the perimeter but aren't allowed to engage in any altercation unless it's outside? If we can secure our airports then we can damn well secure our kid's schools. If gun control measures aren't going to pass then find a way and do it because these fish in a barrel scenarios are a huge problem.

Oh, and I read something earlier that said these incidents aren't increasing per capita. This isn't a new phenomenon, but they are becoming more deadly.
 
Shouldn't research into the causes of gun violence be a top priority?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/16/health/gun-violence-government-research/index.html

The violence Wednesday at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, is the country's eighth school shooting this year, "and it's only February," as Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Florida, pointed out during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing Thursday.

Castor said a provision called the Dickey Amendment, in place for decades, has had a "chilling effect" and essentially kept the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention from doing substantial gun violence, safety and prevention research, like "we do with automobile accidents that has ended up saving a lot of lives over time."

The amendment, a rider in a government spending bill that went into effect in 1997, says that "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control."

At Thursday's hearing, Castor asked Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar point-blank whether his agency would conduct more gun violence research in the wake of the shooting. Azar told the committee that he did not interpret the rider as restricting gun research. "My understanding is that the rider does not in any way impede our research mission. It is simply about advocacy," he said.

When pressed again on whether he would "actively speak out" and "be proactive on the research initiative" as it relates to guns, Azar responded that "we certainly will."

"Our Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we are in the science business and the evidence-generating business," he said. "So I will certainly have our agencies working in this field, as they do across the whole broad spectrum."
...

Daniel Webster, an expert on gun violence, doesn't think that what Azar said signals a significant change from the previous government stance.

Webster -- the Bloomberg Professor of American Health at Johns Hopkins and a noted expert on gun policy -- says Azar is right about the rider. "There is nothing in law that prevents the CDC from doing gun research," he said. "It's politics that prevents it."

There are two things the CDC could do if it wanted to use money to fund gun research, Webster said: First, take funds appropriated for the research of domestic violence or youth violence and use that money to focus on a specific role that guns play in that violence. Second, Congress could make a special appropriation that directs the CDC to examine gun violence. However, he said, no one has had the political will to take either action.

"No one wants to anger the gun lobby. The CDC certainly would not want to do that and then see their budget cut, as has happened in the past," Webster said.

The American Medical Association thinks gun violence research should start immediately.

"Gun violence today is a public health crisis in the United States; it knows no geographic, political or social bounds," the group's president, Dr. David O. Barbe, said in a statement Thursday. "An epidemiological analysis of gun violence is vital to address this public health crisis so our society can take action and prevent injury, death and other harms resulting from firearms.

"As in any urgent public health threat, we cannot devise effective solutions until we have a deeper understanding of the underlying causes that prompt gun violence," he said. "With more than 30,000 Americans dying each year from gun violence and firearm-related accidents, the time to act is now."
...
"The reluctance to do research makes no sense," Dr. Alan Leshner, CEO emeritus of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said in October after the Las Vegas shootings. "It's one of the few public health problems facing the country about which we have basically no scientific base of information to guide us how to deal with it."
...
Webster said that any government funding for gun-related research has typically gone to areas that are related to gun violence, like mental health or the impact of violence in the media or poverty, rather than to gun violence itself. He's received some of those funds.

He pointed out that this again may be the direction the administration will focus on, noting that Azar's testimony followed a familiar pattern: On Thursday, Azar said his department would be "laser-focused" on work that would help people with mental illness rather than specifically emphasizing any research involving guns.

"My hunch is, the CDC will find a way to use some of the funding for the non-gun-related aspect of mass shootings, so it will focus on this mental health component or on the influence of violence in the media on these shooters," Webster said. "I will be shocked if there is a direct examination of gun violence or gun policy."
 
It sounds like this kid was reported to the FBI, reported to the authorities, was a known problem to the school.

The system, the law, failed us here. So is the answer to give the system more power? I just don't know how much, if any, it will fix. I mean, report a kid has a gun and wants to shoot people to the FBI and nothing happens. That's lunacy.

The 18 school shootings is an inaccurate or misleading statement for a variety of reasons. I'll leave it to all of you to look it up, not hard. Still doesn't diminish the tragedy involved here. This is wrong.

We can try to take guns away, but guns aren't the issue. Where are the parents? Where are the leaders? Where are the teachers? Something is wrong with how these kids are being raised. I don't know what it is, specifically, but something is wrong. This isn't normal. We need to find the real solution here, not a temporary one.
 
@Bulletproof

How would you feel regarding a law around semi-automatic weapons that would be similar to the automatic weapon law? Make them accessible, just more difficult to get.

I've thought about it a lot. Not sure it solves anything other than social pressure. But it might help too. Idk.
 
Top