Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[baskev]

These aren't novel contingencies -- in almost all cases of a defensive gun use, including intervention of a potential mass shooting of which there have been plenty, law enforcement won't be on scene til it's all over anyway, and there is already training and tips available for carriers who are interested in how to behave with regard to the police. If the active shooter were down and dead, re-holster and wait. If active shooter down but alive, maintain cover and make sure you are communicating through bystanders and witnesses to the police what they will see when they come in. If active shooter is being engaged, against, this is where much depends on the calm and clarity of whomever is communicating with law enforcement.

And there are obviously not only school shootings -- but universally, mass shootings are carried out where there is the lowest possible chance to face immediate armed resistance and with limited avenues of escape. There's a lesson in that.

First part yes you are right. And many people are very calm during mass shootings, and cops never react on emotion < sarcasm.
Not saying it can not go right. I am saying if people get shot in back yards ( their own), with their hands up, with their hands up laying down on the ground. is sign that the police might no be think first ask questions later state of mind all the time.
And yes people could give directions. But mass shootings most of the time are very confusing. Very panic mode.

So your reaction is: Fight guns with guns?
There is a hole in the wall that causes water poring in, so lets cut a other hole to drain it. ( instead of fixing the hole, looking where the water is coming from etc).
Yes the seek out easy prey. But sometimes they shoot out of hotel windows. Your give a gun to stop shooting means everyone in america needs to carry a gun EVERYwhere.

I am saying its better to limit the guns more to people who can handle them. It will not stop mass shootings but it will lower them. Adding more laws and restrictions can lower the amount of death.
Because its ( sarcastically) funny that you do not mention that most of the shooters from the last few years got a shit ton of guns in a short time. Sometimes they should not even get the guns legal in that amount of time.

- - - Updated - - -

The police would need to know if a school has armed teachers in it. Same as if they respond to a home invasion, with the intruder still inside and the home owner is armed and has told such on their 911 call.

Of the hundreds( ?) of schools across the nation which have had armed teachers in them for years now, no such type scenarios have happened where students have been killed by a armed teacher. Part of obtaining a license for carry conceal , is a background check, which does check for any history of crimes or mental health issues.

1.) yes they would need to know. But are police capable of thinking like that. Look at the the cop killings etc from last few years.
2.) Not yet. And if teachers need to do it. why not all people?

Because yes we might lower gun shootings in schools. But then it will move to parks, playgrounds, cinema's etc etc etc.
Its a fix that will lower it slightly ( witch is a good thing do not get me wrong see below why). But it will not fix the general problem.

A small fix i must agree with you is still a help.
And i do not think there is a 100% fix for this. And every % is a % that its lower.

[Shadowferal]

I found it funny that recently the local schools here protested the lack of security; and the mayor responded by allocating funds for armed guards for every school in the district.

[zenkai]

My point is that if you are going to call "pretending to have a gun" an example of "defensive firearms usage", you have zero credibility.

No firearm was used. Therefore, no firearm was used defensively.

This is not a difficult concept.

Yet you can be charged with armed robbery with a fake gun. Your point is invalid.

[petej0]

I agree with your sentiments. However, one thing I have learned in my way-too-many-shouting-matches with gun rights' advocates, is that they have legitimate concerns about gun regulation, and to get it passed, we have to address their needs.

Interestingly, I have found good suggestions for gun regulation from gun rights' advocates. Which I felt was both surprising and ironic.

I like to think both sides have good arguments. However only one side is operating out of knee jerk emotions, while the other side has maintained the same talking points. I really wish the gun control advocates take a step back, look at what they are asking for and determine how that helps anything. Calling for a ban on "assault weapons" falls on deaf ears when the deadliest mass shootings have been done by handguns. It falls on deaf ears when the vast majority of deaths are done using handguns. It falls on deaf ears when you have people using terms like "Fully-semi-auto" You cant have an honest conversation about solving the problem when gun rights advocates dont respect gun control advocates because gun control advocates cant be bothered to use correct terminology.

Just for giggles, if you keep saying that the ''2 million crimes prevented per year'' can't be proven because people don't report it to the police, does it strike you that it means by definition that the number is conveniently impossible to prove ?

(BTW, the gung-ho attitude displayed here is what get people killed-themselves. All the people playing pretend saying that they train to shoot muggers with their concealed carry Glock. Call me a coward, but I would not risk MY life for credit cards that can be cancelled within the hour and a library card. I'm fracking sure that every single police department in the world, including in the most backward parts of the USA, would strongly advise people to just hand the wallet if mugged, unless they think their lives are worth 50$ to risk)

I mean, I guess you could say the same thing about pepper spray, karate and all other forms of self defense. What you are basically saying is "We have police, there is no need to defend yourselves." I am not saying everyone should carry a firearm, but people should have the choice to defend themselves in whatever way they choose. If that is with firearms, pepper spray, keys, knives, swords, bats, martial arts so be it.

[Shadowferal]

I mean, I guess you could say the same thing about pepper spray, karate and all other forms of self defense. What you are basically saying is "We have police, there is no need to defend yourselves." I am not saying everyone should carry a firearm, but people should have the choice to defend themselves in whatever way they choose. If that is with firearms, pepper spray, keys, knives, swords, bats, martial arts so be it.

It got quickly tiresome to me defending defensive gun use. Especially when you realize that you're arguing from someone that lives in a country where defending oneself is considered legally dubious if not outright illegal.

[cubby]

I like to think both sides have good arguments. However only one side is operating out of knee jerk emotions, while the other side has maintained the same talking points. I really wish the gun control advocates take a step back, look at what they are asking for and determine how that helps anything. Calling for a ban on "assault weapons" falls on deaf ears when the deadliest mass shootings have been done by handguns. It falls on deaf ears when the vast majority of deaths are done using handguns. It falls on deaf ears when you have people using terms like "Fully-semi-auto" You cant have an honest conversation about solving the problem when gun rights advocates dont respect gun control advocates because gun control advocates cant be bothered to use correct terminology.

Both sides seem to have "knee jerk emotions" - at least I'm seeing a lot of that from the gun advocates' side. You are incorrect about "the deadliest mass shootings having been done by handguns" - not sure why you'd say something false (or was Parkland not one of the deadliest?). And does it really matter?

And people asked that 18-year-olds not be able to buy AR-15's - which is a pretty reasonable request.

Correct gun terminology is irrelevant when children are being shot up in schools. That's something gun rights advocates need to understand - they don't give a shit what the "machine gun" is called, they don't want 18-year-olds buying it.

And they're right.

While you make good points about both sides needing to talk, you abandon that rational position almost immediately when you say "only one side is emotional" - you need to take a look at what you're saying and how it affects your opposing peers. I know I did - and I've changed how I discuss gun advocacy because of it.

For instance, I am now very aware that gun rights' advocates are deeply concerned that lawful gun owners are going to lose their guns - that "the libtards are gonna take ma' guns", so to speak. I had no idea that gun owners were worried about that happening. I had no intention of doing that.

[petej0]

It got quickly tiresome to me defending defensive gun use. Especially when you realize that you're arguing from someone that lives in a country where defending oneself is considered legally dubious if not outright illegal.

I just cant get behind the attitude of just going along with what an attacker says. If he demands my wallet, I have no problem handing him my wallet and pin code for ATM cards. However the thinking is the person will just let you go, is that normal status operating procedure, because I have seen many instances where the people have complied with what the person wanted and got killed afterwards anyways. Is there a secret way to know ahead of time that I am missing?

[cubby]

Yet you can be charged with armed robbery with a fake gun. Your point is invalid.

You sidestepped his completely valid point. If you want to have serious discussions, you have stay on topic and not bring up juvenile points that are germane to the discussion.

- - - Updated - - -

I found it funny that recently the local schools here protested the lack of security; and the mayor responded by allocating funds for armed guards for every school in the district.

I would be interested in seeing what it would cost to place a LEO at each school - not arming teachers or hiring private security - but stationing an officer/deputy at every school.

That kind of solution would be welcome.

(as long as they don't run away from the gun fire, of course)

[sarahtasher]

It got quickly tiresome to me defending defensive gun use. Especially when you realize that you're arguing from someone that lives in a country where defending oneself is considered legally dubious if not outright illegal.

No, the question is ''is this a good idea to pull out a gun when mugged and thus risk YOUR life for 40-50 $ ?''

- - - Updated - - -

You sidestepped his completely valid point. If you want to have serious discussions, you have stay on topic and not bring up juvenile points that are germane to the discussion.

- - - Updated - - -



I would be interested in seeing what it would cost to place a LEO at each school - not arming teachers or hiring private security - but stationing an officer/deputy at every school.

That kind of solution would be welcome.

(as long as they don't run away from the gun fire, of course)

As they won' do it for charity, you will get exactly what you pay for. While a team of SEALs would be extremely convenient to have at each school, I have the gnarly impression that you are going to get people who could not qualify to be security for malls.

- - - Updated - - -

Brilliant, talking to your child instead of using it as a tool in social media to feed ones narcissim and otherwise ignoring it.

If most liberals had a dad like you are one, liberalism wouldn't exist.
Pretty much /thread right here.

''Liberalism'' as usual understood as ''anyone slightly to the left of Gengis Khan, considering that the American right actually thinks that the Nazis are ''leftists'' ''

Also, note here that being afraid of guns is silly kauze the NRA love them. Being mortally afraid of ''migrants'', ''illegals'', ''inner city thugs'', ''liberals'', ''hippies'', ''environmentalists'' (read : anyone who is not a rabid NRA member), fluor in the water, chemtrails, volcanoes, polar inversion, Democrats, Muslims while leaving in the middle of Alabama, gays and/or people who say mean things about videogame boobies are all completely rational things, that must be encouraged by buying more guns.

[zenkai]

You sidestepped his completely valid point. If you want to have serious discussions, you have stay on topic and not bring up juvenile points that are germane to the discussion.

His point is invalid and you brought nothing up to validate it.

[petej0]

Both sides seem to have "knee jerk emotions" - at least I'm seeing a lot of that from the gun advocates' side. You are incorrect about "the deadliest mass shootings having been done by handguns" - not sure why you'd say something false (or was Parkland not one of the deadliest?). And does it really matter?

VT shooting killed 32 students with two handguns
Orlando Nightclub, 49 people killed using handguns

I wasnt talking only school shootings, I wouldnt think it would matter, a mass shooting is a mass shooting.

Correct gun terminology is irrelevant when children are being shot up in schools. That's something gun rights advocates need to understand - they don't give a shit what the "machine gun" is called, they don't want 18-year-olds buying it.

It is relevant if you want gun advocates to agree with you. If you say: "18 year olds should not be able to buy machine guns" Then you wont get far, because in order to agree to that gun advocates are basically saying Machine guns are ok for 18+ when that is not what we are talking about.

While you make good points about both sides needing to talk, you abandon that rational position almost immediately when you say "only one side is emotional" - you need to take a look at what you're saying and how it affects your opposing peers. I know I did - and I've changed how I discuss gun advocacy because of it.

For instance, I am now very aware that gun rights' advocates are deeply concerned that lawful gun owners are going to lose their guns - that "the libtards are gonna take ma' guns", so to speak. I had no idea that gun owners were worried about that happening. I had no intention of doing that.

You are right, When I say emotional, I mean that it just isnt important to many people until the next event happens. Its not a major policy point for any politician until it happens again. Its all abortion, healthcare, gay marriage etc.. I could be wrong, but thats just how I see it. Maybe it will be during the midterms who knows.

I have altered my approach to discussion as well. I know the fears people have about firearms. They raise some good points. not being able to buy under the age of 18 is not something I agree with, but I will concede on that because I feel it is something to compromise on and people seem to be really in favor of it.

[zenkai]

I just cant get behind the attitude of just going along with what an attacker says. If he demands my wallet, I have no problem handing him my wallet and pin code for ATM cards. However the thinking is the person will just let you go, is that normal status operating procedure, because I have seen many instances where the people have complied with what the person wanted and got killed afterwards anyways. Is there a secret way to know ahead of time that I am missing?

Well the same people who are here putting trust in the integrity of a criminal often defend them as well, just a perspective I have noticed.

[petej0]

No, the question is ''is this a good idea to pull out a gun when mugged and thus risk YOUR life for 40-50 $ ?''

Thats only if the person mugging you wont kill you anyways. There is no guarantee they will just let you go.

[Mullet Man]

And people asked that 18-year-olds not be able to buy AR-15's - which is a pretty reasonable request.

I disagree with this.
If you are considered an adult in the eyes of the law, you should be afforded all the rights of an adult.
This includes gun ownership, drinking, and voting.

With that said, if they want to move the age of a legal adult up to 21, I'm okay with that.
But ALL the benefits of being an adult also move up to 21.

I also think a third option is available.
A Minor+ age bracket, where some of the rights afforded an adult are earned, by minors between the age of 16-21.

Are you and 4.0 student with 2 years of documented community service at age 16? You get Voting.
Two consecutive 4.0 years and MADD/AA volunteering? You get drinking.
These are just made up examples... but you get the idea.

[sarahtasher]

Thats only if the person mugging you wont kill you anyways. There is no guarantee they will just let you go.

In my province, there was ONE, maybe two case in ten years of a robbery leading to death.

[Shadowferal]

Out of millions of arrests, there is a minuscule percentage of lethal force used by police. (average in the past few years I think was 0.00003%)

[Lucavian]

I just cant get behind the attitude of just going along with what an attacker says. If he demands my wallet, I have no problem handing him my wallet and pin code for ATM cards. However the thinking is the person will just let you go, is that normal status operating procedure, because I have seen many instances where the people have complied with what the person wanted and got killed afterwards anyways. Is there a secret way to know ahead of time that I am missing?

it's pretty standard escalation prevention. An attacker wants to assert control over you. The moment you have a weapon, the attacker would deem you on at least even footing and may take actions they otherwise wouldn't to once more establish control. Might they kill you anyway, yes, but you drawing a weapon and preventing them from killing you is less likely than you not drawing a weapon and them not killing you by just going along with the situation, unless of course their goal is to inflict harm and not just take your things.

Here's the harsh reality of the problem. School shooters are mass murderers. Mass murderers don't follow the laws the moment they set out to kill someone. Prevent them from getting a gun legally and they'll do it illegally. Prevent them from getting a gun illegally and they'll find more dastardly ways of killing their fellow students. Youthful generations have become desensitized from death. They take their own lives when bullied, they take the lives of others when bullied, and they don't care. It's not the weapon killing people, it's the mindset, it's the attacker killing people. There are countries with much stricter gun laws and countries with even easier access to guns and we still have more school shootings than both, why? The root cause of the problem isn't the weapons used and the sooner the nation realizes that, the sooner we can focus on a solution.

[cubby]

As they won' do it for charity, you will get exactly what you pay for. While a team of SEALs would be extremely convenient to have at each school, I have the gnarly impression that you are going to get people who could not qualify to be security for malls.

I'm speaking specifically of LEO's staffing these posts. NOT private security, which I said in the post you quoted but left out.

- - - Updated - - -

His point is invalid and you brought nothing up to validate it.

You think it is because you deflect and dissemble when cornered with facts and logic. Nothing here is telling us differently. Or do you not understand the difference between a fake gun and a non-existent gun?

[petej0]

In my province, there was ONE, maybe two case in ten years of a robbery leading to death.

Thats wonderful, with all due respect not everyone lives in your province. There are plenty of cases of people who were robbed, killed and body left for hunters/hikers/joggers to find. Hell I remember a case where the family was tied up in the home. The robber took cash and valuables and torched the place. The whole family died in the fire.

it's pretty standard escalation prevention. An attacker wants to assert control over you. The moment you have a weapon, the attacker would deem you on at least even footing and may take actions they otherwise wouldn't to once more establish control. Might they kill you anyway, yes, but you drawing a weapon and preventing them from killing you is less likely than you not drawing a weapon and them not killing you by just going along with the situation, unless of course their goal is to inflict harm and not just take your things.

See my above statement. Is there anyway to know going into the situation weather you will be killed if you comply or not?

[Shadowferal]

Hmf...probably already posted but back a few years ago; CDC Study: Use of Firearms for Self-Defense is ‘Important Crime Deterrent’