***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (8 Viewers)

[ATC1]

Just in case anyone wants to read it the other interpretation of mass shooting data, which seems to conflict with the interpretations being thrown around in this thread: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.

I read the article. Can you show me what they consider a "Massing shooting" is? How many victims? There is a reason why they are not mass killings involved with a CCP holder. They would not be considered mass killings. 10/1/1997 - Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed 3 students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.4/24/1998 - Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed 2 people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing 2 more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and commit suicide before police arrived.4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter killed 1 person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.

 

[rascal]

Coworker pointed out that not since 1950, he wasn't sure of the exact date, all of these shootings have occurred in a "gun-free zone". Is that true?

 

[Schlzm]

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're proposing. A restriction on magazine size seems pretty similar to an assault weapons ban. How is a restriction on magazine size inherently different? What percentage of crime do you think occurs as a result of this magazine size, and how much money do you think it would cost to enforce this restriction? How much would you suspect the gun crime would come down as a result of this? Would it have done anything to prevent this crime? I'm guessing you don't have the answers based on the "(I hope)" part of what you said.Let's say for the sake of argument we went with those restrictions and they didn't produce the results you desire. Should we get rid of them at that point? Or maybe we just didn't reach quite far enough and there's one or two more slight restrictions that would limit the damage sufficiently? There's things we all would like to stamp out of this world. Unfortunately that's never going to happen entirely. Given that we typically err on the side of freedom, shouldn't there be some demonstrable results if we're going to elect to restrict that freedom?

1. A restriction on magazine size is exactly that. It is different from a ban on assault weapons, because you'll still be able to purchase and own the assault weapons. 2. A very low percentage of total violent crime is attributed to high capacity magazines. However, the vast majority of these mass shootings involve high capacity magazines, and that's what I'm focused upon. 3. I don't have any idea how much it would cost. I have always believed, however, that the vast majority of gun-owners are law-abiding citizens, and they will voluntarily obey this restriction once it's in place. But I don't know what the cost of enforcement will be. I think that whatever it is, we should be willing to pay it.4. As I wrote earlier, I don't suspect that gun crime will come down as a result of this. I am in favor of it SPECIFICALLY because I believe that, in incidents like Friday morning, the amount of casualties may be more limited. 5. While it most likely would not have done anything to prevent Sandy Hook, the number of deaths MAY have been reduced. I think that in a few other notable mass shootings it is even more clear this would have been the case. 6. If this restriction were attempted for a reasonable period of time (not being a crime statistician, I have no idea how long that would be) and it proved ineffective, I would have no problem getting rid of it. I don't generally believe in useless, restrictive laws. 7. Yes there should be demonstrable results. Sometimes though, you have to impose restrictions in order to discover whether those results are tangible. In this case, I am willing to do so because I don't consider limiting the amount of rounds a single magazine can carry to be a significant infringement on anyone's "freedom". The fact that you could even bring up the term "freedom" in this context demonstrates, IMO, the extremist position that so many gun-owners seem to have toward ANY kind of gun regulation whatsoever.

Thanks, I got ya.There has to be some way we could make a reasonable guess on how much this would potentially limit the damage and casualties. Something like how many rounds can a trained/untrained person fire accurately per a given amount of time with the magazines you'd like to ban vs available weapons with magazine sizes that you wouldn't? Would this killer have been able to do as much damage as he did with rapid loading pistols? And if there is a difference, is there a reasonable scenario where a person would need the ability to fire that rapidly when defending themselves?Not sure what you find extreme about this definition of freedom. Perhaps you can be more specific on that. It strikes me that your definition of freedom might be rather flimsy.

As I wrote earlier, I have difficulty comprehending the situation where you would need a 30 round magazine to defend yourself, unless you're Jason Bourne or Jack Bauer. Schlzm brought up the 3 pit bull scenario, so I suppose anything's possible. As far as freedom goes, I've just never associated it with high capacity gun magazines, sorry.

I'm not a gun owner, but my first inclination is the more rounds the better. If you're the good guy, that's a good situation to have. Better to have too many rounds than too few, especially when they're being used for the powers of good. How many rounds would it take to down a couple of pissed off grizzlies?

I think there is a point where more bullets are useless for the good guy. It would be like a bell curve. The good guy only needs so many bullets before its marginal utility is fairly useless. A legal gun owner would rarely if ever be in a situation where they needed 30 bullets in a mag. The only situation that I've seen would be protecting your house or store from looting in which case 10 mags of 6 would seem to act the same as 2 mags of 30. However, in a situation like this, where the attacker is in a new environment on the run, it would seem more difficult to carry around 10 mags as opposed to just taping two giant mags together. I would assume any situation where you come in contact with rabid dogs or bears or even attackers, 6-10 bullets would probably do the trick to scare off your attacker or hurt them enough for you to run. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/01/12/5825033-gun-rights-advocate-high-capacity-magazine-restrictions-makes-sense?lite

Law-enforcement officials have noted that Loughner's high-capacity round magazine substantially increased the lethality of his rampage; he was able to get off at least 31 shots without reloading and was only wrestled to the ground when he tried to reload with another high-capacity magazine.

Honestly, for recreational shooting 30+ round capacity mags are a ton of fun while also being a huge pain in the ###. I would suggest everyone with a thought on this subject go to their local gun range and rent an AR with the standard cap thirty round mags and enjoy punching some holes in paper while enduring the nuisance that is reloading them. However I think I can get on board with stopping future sales and transfers of any mag above ten rounds. Two of the most effective battle rifles ever deployed were the M1 Garand and the KAR98 Mauser, 8 and 5 round internal box capacity. While it may mean more reloading time I can live with ten or fifteen rounds.Schlzm

Is there a time difference in reloading? Seems the common denominator in a lot of these things is these guys get tackled when trying to reload. I'm probably going to end up on some government watchlist with my goofy internet search history here but it seems a lot of people are claiming 3 second load times on the smaller ones on the AR-15 and gun enthusiast boards. Is it possible that a smaller clip gives less of a window to go in and tackle these guys? What about one of those fast reloading pistols, or if he went into this place with a shotgun?

A mag swap comes down to pretty much two variables; the platform being used and how much practice the person has put in doing it. AR-15 style platforms are built for very efficient and rapid magazine swapping. Most mag fed pistols allow for extremely fast swaps as long as the weapon is well maintained and with a little practice an individual can drop an empty mag and feed in a new one then release the slide lock in under a second. Tube fed shotguns generally carry seven or less shells but allow the operator to continuously feed in new shells while maintaining one in the chamber ready to fire, this means that any break in the action allows expended shells to be replaced easily without having to give up operational status of the weapon or even alter position of the weapon away from an aggressive stance. Schlzm

 

[Schlzm]

2. A very low percentage of total violent crime is attributed to high capacity magazines. However, the vast majority of these mass shootings involve high capacity magazines, and that's what I'm focused upon.

4. As I wrote earlier, I don't suspect that gun crime will come down as a result of this. I am in favor of it SPECIFICALLY because I believe that, in incidents like Friday morning, the amount of casualties may be more limited.

5. While it most likely would not have done anything to prevent Sandy Hook, the number of deaths MAY have been reduced. I think that in a few other notable mass shootings it is even more clear this would have been the case.

I almost think you talk to the wall at home just because it cant talk back.. I bolded the highlights.

So how many of those kids took multiple gun shots after they were most likely dead? Just checking..

They were talking about gun violence and video games on the radio yesterday. Actually each victim was shot two times regardless of if they were dead with the first bullet or not. The psyco used a double tap only taught in the military or Call of Duty Modern Warfare. Never played the game, so I can not comment further.

Or Zombieland. Rule #2.

 

[Apple Jack]

Why does this guy keep using the word "responsible" like it is the least bit relevant to the conversation?

 

[moleculo]

...As far as the assault weapons ban, I think the reasoning behind it are twofold. One, for the mental health of the public. The general public feels better about knowing AR-15's aren't just hanging out there. Additionally, nobody really does have a use for an AR-15. It doesn't really fall under recreational or personal safety. But even then, I'm willing to forgo the AWB in favor of bigger restrictions to getting guns. Why not track guns and revoke dealer's licenses if enough of his guns end up in criminal activities? I found this

Corrupt federally licensed gun dealers: Federally licensed gun dealers send more guns to the criminal market than any other single source. Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they’re selling guns “off the books” to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 “missing” firearms.

So why not revoke their federal license?

I'm not exactly a gun guy, but I do sympathize with them. I was talking about this today with my buddy at work, who is a gun guy. His favorite hunting rifle is an AR-15 - he shot a deer last weekend with it, in fact. His claim is that the .223 cartridge that these shoot is marginally underpowered and sometimes he has trouble dropping larger deer with it. He uses an 8 round magazine for hunting, so he doesn't really have an issue with limiting magazine size.So that being said, I'd like to hear exactly what defines an assault rifle before we decide we want to ban them.That all being said, my buddy would be in favor of better tracking of private party sales, even though in general he's not a fan of the gov't tracking anything.

 

[ATC1]

Psycho killers like this guy are generally known as cowards and attack soft targets where they know no guns will likely be present. There were also many movie theaters by that guy in CO but he chose the one theater which prominately displayed the no guns allowed sign. I think killers would think twice if it could be a possibility that the people they attack may have a way to fight back. Have you thought about that?

I've heard this argument used several times in the last few days, and it really doesn't make much sense to me. Almost all of these guys die while committing their crimes. A majority kill themselves. So far as I know, none of them get away. Yes, Lanza and the Aurora shooter chose what turned out to be "soft targets", but we don't have any clue as to whether that was their motivation. Certainly Jared Loughner and the guy who attacked the military base a few years back did not choose soft targets. I don't think there's any correlation here.

I have to find were I read it again, but I want to say that citizens were not able to carry at the political rally in Arizona. And for some reason no one was armed in the location of the base.

If you find it, I'd love to see the reason why people weren't allowed to carry their guns at the constituent meeting at a supermarket in a state that lets people carry guns in bars.

Wiki:The gunman was then tackled to the ground by 74-year-old retired US Army Colonel Bill Badger,[26] who himself had been shot, and was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Zamudio was a CCW holder and had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not use the firearm to engage or threaten the gunman.[27]

While Arizona has some of the least restrictive gun laws when it comes to carry. The shooter who is known to have issues with all political people in general did choose a Democratic rally.

Ok that was a stretch, but no one with a CCP was there until after he was detained.

 

[[icon]]

Just in case anyone wants to read it the other interpretation of mass shooting data, which seems to conflict with the interpretations being thrown around in this thread:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.

I read the article. Can you show me what they consider a "Massing shooting" is? How many victims? There is a reason why they are not mass killings involved with a CCP holder. They would not be considered mass killings. 10/1/1997 - Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed 3 students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.

4/24/1998 - Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.

12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed 2 people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing 2 more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and commit suicide before police arrived.

4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter killed 1 person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.

The reason there aren't many mass shootings stopped by armed civilians with a gun, is because armed civilians stop the incidents before mass casualties are inflicted. This was reflected in the data stating that the average shooting spree stopped by police has 7x more deaths than those stopped by civilians. I find it interesting that people who are desperately reaching for a means to minimize the effects of mass shootings are completely turning a blind eye to a factor that reduces deaths by such a large magnitude.

 

[ATC1]

1. How is having a gun in the possession of a responsible person going to increase the number of attacks?

2. Who said anything about increasing the amount of guns? The number should remain the same if there is more in responsible citizens and less in those who are irresponsible. Every time there is an attack the gun sales boom overnight either for protection or fear of the government. In fact, I have said it needs to be more difficult to be able to get a CCP (already required a safety course, background check can not have a felony or DUI) and I have said it should be more difficult to get a weapon even without a CCP. (mandatory self defense classes and safety classes before being able to own and needing to own a safe to prevent stolen guns.) Should also not allow private gun sales without going through a gun dealer transfer.

3. You just said you will concede that the reason the Aurora shooter chose that movie theater was because of the no guns sign. If all places were allowed to have citizens carry, maybe he does not go through with the attack.

1. Because you cannot guarantee that every single person given access to guns after easing the requirements will be responsible. In fact I can guarantee that at least person granted increased access under any easing of restrictions will NOT be responsible. That's just reality. 2. It sounds like what you are advocating is more gun control, not less. If that's the case, my post wasn't intended to challenge your position. It was intended to challenge people who advocate looser restrictions as a way to limit damage done in these attacks based on "common sense" or anecdotal evidence but reject the flip side of the argument. If you're not advocating looser restrictions, that's not you.

3. I don't think I said anything close to that.

Sorry, that was someone else. You used that example with context of the mind of the shooter wanting to be taken alive. As far as irresponsibility. You maybe right, bad things happen. I just don't see how someone wanting to arm themselves for protection can at the drop of a hat decide to use it on the people they are trying to protect. If they wanted to they would just bring the gun that day illegally, no?

 

[ATC1]

Why does this guy keep using the word "responsible" like it is the least bit relevant to the conversation?

Because this thread is 55 pages of ATC trying to convince you that his concealed permit is just fine and please leave him and his guns alone.

I think we are making progress. I suggested arming with a taser as a start. I can see changes need to be made and agree there need to be more restrictions. Please don't group me with those that say, "Don't take away my guns, we need more." TIA.

 

[ATC1]

...

As far as the assault weapons ban, I think the reasoning behind it are twofold. One, for the mental health of the public. The general public feels better about knowing AR-15's aren't just hanging out there. Additionally, nobody really does have a use for an AR-15. It doesn't really fall under recreational or personal safety.

But even then, I'm willing to forgo the AWB in favor of bigger restrictions to getting guns. Why not track guns and revoke dealer's licenses if enough of his guns end up in criminal activities? I found this

Corrupt federally licensed gun dealers: Federally licensed gun dealers send more guns to the criminal market than any other single source. Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they’re selling guns “off the books” to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 “missing” firearms.

So why not revoke their federal license?

I'm not exactly a gun guy, but I do sympathize with them. I was talking about this today with my buddy at work, who is a gun guy. His favorite hunting rifle is an AR-15 - he shot a deer last weekend with it, in fact. His claim is that the .223 cartridge that these shoot is marginally underpowered and sometimes he has trouble dropping larger deer with it. He uses an 8 round magazine for hunting, so he doesn't really have an issue with limiting magazine size.So that being said, I'd like to hear exactly what defines an assault rifle before we decide we want to ban them.



That all being said, my buddy would be in favor of better tracking of private party sales, even though in general he's not a fan of the gov't tracking anything.

Sounds like a reasonable right winged person. It takes a lot for gun advocates to give more info to the government.

 

[joffer]

Joe Biden to the rescue

 

[timschochet]

Isn't it about time for someone to come in and post that this thread has convinced them to go out and purchase a new AR-15? Seems overdue.

 

[badmojo1006]

Not sure if this has been posted, but since 2005, Gun manufactures have been exempt from lawsuits in which their products have been misused

 

[sporthenry]

More guns less crime

http://www.crab.rutgers.edu/~goertzel/mythsofmurder.htmhttp://islandia.law.yale.edu/ayers/Ayres_Donohue_article.pdf

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/wopjopovw/31.htm

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1017&context=john_donohue

http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1065&context=john_donohue

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=245849

Just b/c they published it, doesn't make it fact. It'd be like citing Keynes and all the books he has written about government spending and act as if it is commonly accepted knowledge throughout the industry. But I suspect many of you who are pro-gun aren't exactly pro-Keynes.

 

[timschochet]

...

As far as the assault weapons ban, I think the reasoning behind it are twofold. One, for the mental health of the public. The general public feels better about knowing AR-15's aren't just hanging out there. Additionally, nobody really does have a use for an AR-15. It doesn't really fall under recreational or personal safety.

But even then, I'm willing to forgo the AWB in favor of bigger restrictions to getting guns. Why not track guns and revoke dealer's licenses if enough of his guns end up in criminal activities? I found this

Corrupt federally licensed gun dealers: Federally licensed gun dealers send more guns to the criminal market than any other single source. Nearly 60% of the guns used in crime are traced back to a small number—just 1.2%—of crooked gun dealers. Corrupt dealers frequently have high numbers of missing guns, in many cases because they’re selling guns “off the books” to private sellers and criminals. In 2005, the ATF examined 3,083 gun dealers and found 12,274 “missing” firearms.

So why not revoke their federal license?

I'm not exactly a gun guy, but I do sympathize with them. I was talking about this today with my buddy at work, who is a gun guy. His favorite hunting rifle is an AR-15 - he shot a deer last weekend with it, in fact. His claim is that the .223 cartridge that these shoot is marginally underpowered and sometimes he has trouble dropping larger deer with it. He uses an 8 round magazine for hunting, so he doesn't really have an issue with limiting magazine size.So that being said, I'd like to hear exactly what defines an assault rifle before we decide we want to ban them.



That all being said, my buddy would be in favor of better tracking of private party sales, even though in general he's not a fan of the gov't tracking anything.

Sounds like a reasonable right winged person. It takes a lot for gun advocates to give more info to the government.

I've noticed that more and more pro-gun people are willing to end the private sales loophole. Perhaps that will be the concession the NRA offers on Friday? Though I want both this AND a limit on magazines, in the spirit of compromise I'd be willing to accept just ending the loophole, so long as iit was actually offered by the NRA and not something that had to be forced upon them.

 

[tom22406]

Maybe a good start would be to tell me exactly what a military style weapon is because I can take a .22 caliber rifle(very low on the scale)and turn it into something that looks like a military weapon.

Does this look like a military style weapon to you?

http://hammerbackguns.com/images/GERG2210LTD09N.jpg

That is a .22 caliber rifle that looks really mean but in reality has very little bite.

So the saying military style that is being thrown around is very misleading because you can take almost any gun a make it look that way if you please.

My guess is the rifle they are after is the higher caliber ones such as the AK47 and AR15 which,as has been pointed out before,are nothing close to what the military uses so again the term military style is very misleading.Is it because the guns look mean?Is it the higher caliber ones they are after?

Give me a list and that would be a great start because simply saying semi-automatic tells me very little.

 

[Schlzm]

Maybe a good start would be to tell me exactly what a military style weapon is because I can take a .22 caliber rifle(very low on the scale)and turn it into something that looks like a military weapon.

Does this look like a military style weapon to you?

http://hammerbackguns.com/images/GERG2210LTD09N.jpg

That is a .22 caliber rifle that looks really mean but in reality has very little bite.

So the saying military style that is being thrown around is very misleading because you can take almost any gun a make it look that way if you please.

My guess is the rifle they are after is the higher caliber ones such as the AK47 and AR15 which,as has been pointed out before,are nothing close to what the military uses so again the term military style is very misleading.Is it because the guns look mean?Is it the higher caliber ones they are after?

Give me a list and that would be a great start because simply saying semi-automatic tells me very little.

This is one of the problems. People see something that looks intimidating and it scares them even if they have no understanding of what they are actually looking at. Is this a scary looking weapon? It isn't to me, looks like a toy. Intimidating looking pistol. Everything is speculative.Schlzm

 

[Henry Ford]

Just in case anyone wants to read it the other interpretation of mass shooting data, which seems to conflict with the interpretations being thrown around in this thread: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.

I read the article. Can you show me what they consider a "Massing shooting" is? How many victims? There is a reason why they are not mass killings involved with a CCP holder. They would not be considered mass killings. 10/1/1997 - Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed 3 students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.4/24/1998 - Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed 2 people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing 2 more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and commit suicide before police arrived.4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter killed 1 person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.

I guess I'll take these one at a time. 10/1/1997 - Luke Woodham was stopped by the assistant principal, who got a gun out of his car. Of course, the assistant principal happened to be a commander in the U.S. Army Reserves at the time. Non-civilian.4/24/1998 - Probably left out because there was only one death, but I can't be sure. Just don't know much about this particular incident. Except that the person he killed was a teacher, not a student as you stated. And he left a suicide note saying he wasn't going to hurt anyone else but was going to kill himself that night. Not really sure where you're getting the bully thing from.12/9/2007 - Jeanne Assam was a church member, sure... but she was also the security guard. Which is why she had a gun. Security guard = non-civilian in this study I'd imagine.4/22/2012 - Kiarron Parker was shot by an off-duty police officer. Non-civilian.

 

[ATC1]

Just in case anyone wants to read it the other interpretation of mass shooting data, which seems to conflict with the interpretations being thrown around in this thread: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.

I read the article. Can you show me what they consider a "Massing shooting" is? How many victims? There is a reason why they are not mass killings involved with a CCP holder. They would not be considered mass killings. 10/1/1997 - Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed 3 students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.4/24/1998 - Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed 2 people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing 2 more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and commit suicide before police arrived.4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter killed 1 person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.

I guess I'll take these one at a time. 10/1/1997 - Luke Woodham was stopped by the assistant principal, who got a gun out of his car. Of course, the assistant principal happened to be a commander in the U.S. Army Reserves at the time. Non-civilian.4/24/1998 - Probably left out because there was only one death, but I can't be sure. Just don't know much about this particular incident. Except that the person he killed was a teacher, not a student as you stated. And he left a suicide note saying he wasn't going to hurt anyone else but was going to kill himself that night. Not really sure where you're getting the bully thing from.12/9/2007 - Jeanne Assam was a church member, sure... but she was also the security guard. Which is why she had a gun. Security guard = non-civilian in this study I'd imagine.4/22/2012 - Kiarron Parker was shot by an off-duty police officer. Non-civilian.

Not surprising. 2 at a church, 2 at a school. Both of which are gun free zones. Point to where the shootings that occurred outside gun free zones, where a CCP has intervened and was considered a mass shooting. In the case of the assistant principle who was U.S. Commander in US reserves. He got a gun out of his car. Is it out of the relem of possibility that if he had his gun on him and did not have to go to his car that the 3 students that died could have possibly reduced? My point is that it is possible to train civilians how to properly use a weapon like a non-civilian. Reduce where they are allowed to carry and mass shootings in the areas of prior gun free zones IMO will decrease.

 

[jonessed]

Just in case anyone wants to read it the other interpretation of mass shooting data, which seems to conflict with the interpretations being thrown around in this thread: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.

If you read the report they included incidents that the FBI doesn't classify as mass murders so it makes sense that the results would conflict with anyone using the FBI data.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I realize I'm jumping in here 28 pages too late and what not, but I was just randomly browsing on Youtube and came across this video.

Is this really a legal weapon? Seems to defeat the purpose of making fully automatic weapons illegal.

 

[timschochet]

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-set-january-deadline-gun-proposals-173610698--finance.html

WASHINGTON (AP) — Spurred by a horrific elementary school shooting, President Barack Obama tasked his administration Wednesday with creating concrete proposals to reduce gun violence that has plagued the country.

"This time, the words need to lead to action," said Obama, who set a January deadline for the recommendations. He vowed to push for their implementation without delay.

The president, who exerted little political capital on gun control during his first term, also pressed Congress to reinstate an assault weapons ban, which expired in 2004. He also called for stricter background checks for people who seek to purchase weapons and limited high capacity clips.

"The fact that this problem is complex can no longer be an excuse for doing nothing," Obama said. "The fact that we can't prevent every act of violence doesn't mean we can't steadily reduce the violence."

Obama's announcement Wednesday underscores the urgency the White House sees in formulating a response to the shooting in Newtown, Conn. Twenty children and six adults were killed when a man carrying a military-style rifle stormed an elementary school.

The massacre has prompted several congressional gun rights supporters to consider new legislation to control firearms, and there is some concern that their willingness to engage could fade as the shock and sorrow over the Newtown shooting eases.

Obama said Wednesday it was "encouraging" to see people of different backgrounds and political affiliations coming to an understanding that the country has an obligation to prevent such violence.

Appealing to gun owners, Obama said he believes in the Second Amendment and the country's strong tradition of gun ownership. And he said "the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible."

The president tasked Vice President Joe Biden with leading the administration-wide effort to create new gun control policies. Obama also wants his team to consider ways to improve mental health resources and address ways to create a culture that doesn't promote violence.

The departments of Justice, Education, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security will all be part of the process.

Biden's prominent role in the process could be an asset for the White House in getting gun legislation through Congress. The vice president spent decades in the Senate and has been called on by Obama before to use his long-standing relationships with lawmakers to build support for White House measures.

var t_art_body = new Date().getTime();

 

[SacramentoBob]

var t_art_body = new Date().getTime();

Secret Illuminati code!

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

I realize I'm jumping in here 28 pages too late and what not, but I was just randomly browsing on Youtube and came across this video.

Is this really a legal weapon? Seems to defeat the purpose of making fully automatic weapons illegal.

Yes the slide fires are ATF legal. The shooter must manipulate the gun to fire that fast. I have shot guns with these many times and it takes some practice to get it to work properly and they are not very accurate.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I realize I'm jumping in here 28 pages too late and what not, but I was just randomly browsing on Youtube and came across this video.

Is this really a legal weapon? Seems to defeat the purpose of making fully automatic weapons illegal.

How accurate would one need to be in a movie theater or a classroom or whatever?

 

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

I realize I'm jumping in here 28 pages too late and what not, but I was just randomly browsing on Youtube and came across this video.

Is this really a legal weapon? Seems to defeat the purpose of making fully automatic weapons illegal.

Depends on your goal. I assume you mean if someone's goal was to kill people? I believe they would have less success at killing people and more of a chance at causing injuries.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Just in case anyone wants to read it the other interpretation of mass shooting data, which seems to conflict with the interpretations being thrown around in this thread:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.

I read the article. Can you show me what they consider a "Massing shooting" is? How many victims? There is a reason why they are not mass killings involved with a CCP holder. They would not be considered mass killings. 10/1/1997 - Luke Woodham put on a trench coat to conceal a hunting rifle and entered Pearl High School in Pearl, Mississippi. He killed 3 students before vice principal Joel Myrick apprehended him with a Colt .45 without firing.

4/24/1998 - Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.

12/9/2007 – Matthew J. Murray entered the Youth With A Mission training center in Arvada, Colorado and killed 2 people, then went to the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colorado killing 2 more. He was shot and injured by church member Jeanne Assam and commit suicide before police arrived.

4/22/2012 – Kiarron Parker opened fire in a church parking lot in Aurora, Colorado. The shooter killed 1 person before being shot and killed by a member of the congregation who was carrying concealed.

I guess I'll take these one at a time.

10/1/1997 - Luke Woodham was stopped by the assistant principal, who got a gun out of his car. Of course, the assistant principal happened to be a commander in the U.S. Army Reserves at the time. Non-civilian.

4/24/1998 - Probably left out because there was only one death, but I can't be sure. Just don't know much about this particular incident. Except that the person he killed was a teacher, not a student as you stated. And he left a suicide note saying he wasn't going to hurt anyone else but was going to kill himself that night. Not really sure where you're getting the bully thing from.

12/9/2007 - Jeanne Assam was a church member, sure... but she was also the security guard. Which is why she had a gun. Security guard = non-civilian in this study I'd imagine.

4/22/2012 - Kiarron Parker was shot by an off-duty police officer. Non-civilian.

Not surprising. 2 at a church, 2 at a school. Both of which are gun free zones. Point to where the shootings that occurred outside gun free zones, where a CCP has intervened and was considered a mass shooting. In the case of the assistant principle who was U.S. Commander in US reserves. He got a gun out of his car. Is it out of the relem of possibility that if he had his gun on him and did not have to go to his car that the 3 students that died could have possibly reduced?



My point is that it is possible to train civilians how to properly use a weapon like a non-civilian. Reduce where they are allowed to carry and mass shootings in the areas of prior gun free zones IMO will decrease.

Except that this still leaves the main point: the idea of civilians trained to use weapons can stop these mass shootings is almost entirely a fiction. I don't know if that's true, but you haven't done a good job of challenging the Mother Jones article.The article evaluated 60+ examples of shootings, and in only one case did a civilian with a concealed weapon play a role in limiting or stopping the attack. That's a fair critique of the argument that a more heavily armed civilian population can help stop or limit these incidents. In response, you pointed out that maybe the civilians were so effective they prevented incidents from becoming mass shootings in the first plcae. That's a fair point, too. However, you listed only four counterexamples, and three of them turned out not to be civilians at all. That leaves you back where you started: staring down the Mother Jones data about armed civilians being pretty much ineffective, with virtually no examples or data to contradict their findings.

 

[Mad Cow]

I realize I'm jumping in here 28 pages too late and what not, but I was just randomly browsing on Youtube and came across this video.

Is this really a legal weapon? Seems to defeat the purpose of making fully automatic weapons illegal.

Yeah, those are a hoot to use. I have a slide-fire stock on my 5.45 AR and while tons of fun, it isn't accurate at all, much like most automatic fire.

 

[tom22406]

I realize I'm jumping in here 28 pages too late and what not, but I was just randomly browsing on Youtube and came across this video.

Is this really a legal weapon? Seems to defeat the purpose of making fully automatic weapons illegal.

Correct and I have only shot this once and the accuracy was pretty bad.Ever used the bump fire technique before?

 

[SacramentoBob]

Except that this still leaves the main point: the idea of civilians trained to use weapons can stop these mass shootings is almost entirely a fiction. I don't know if that's true, but you haven't done a good job of challenging the Mother Jones article.The article evaluated 60+ examples of shootings, and in only one case did a civilian with a concealed weapon play a role in limiting or stopping the attack. That's a fair critique of the argument that a more heavily armed civilian population can help stop or limit these incidents. In response, you pointed out that maybe the civilians were so effective they prevented incidents from becoming mass shootings in the first plcae. That's a fair point, too. However, you listed only four counterexamples, and three of them turned out not to be civilians at all. That leaves you back where you started: staring down the Mother Jones data about armed civilians being pretty much ineffective, with virtually no examples or data to contradict their findings.

I think a fair point is that civilians can be trained to stop these types of things from occurring. You just can't be some dude who shoots off a gun in his backyard for fun every weekend. So maybe a compromise is CCW permits for people who regularly participate in the type of training you'd receive in the National Guard.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Except that this still leaves the main point: the idea of civilians trained to use weapons can stop these mass shootings is almost entirely a fiction. I don't know if that's true, but you haven't done a good job of challenging the Mother Jones article.The article evaluated 60+ examples of shootings, and in only one case did a civilian with a concealed weapon play a role in limiting or stopping the attack. That's a fair critique of the argument that a more heavily armed civilian population can help stop or limit these incidents. In response, you pointed out that maybe the civilians were so effective they prevented incidents from becoming mass shootings in the first plcae. That's a fair point, too. However, you listed only four counterexamples, and three of them turned out not to be civilians at all. That leaves you back where you started: staring down the Mother Jones data about armed civilians being pretty much ineffective, with virtually no examples or data to contradict their findings.

I think a fair point is that civilians can be trained to stop these types of things from occurring. You just can't be some dude who shoots off a gun in his backyard for fun every weekend. So maybe a compromise is CCW permits for people who regularly participate in the type of training you'd receive in the National Guard.

Yeah that's true. That's a reasonable takeaway from ATC's counterexamples.

 

[Henry Ford]

Except that this still leaves the main point: the idea of civilians trained to use weapons can stop these mass shootings is almost entirely a fiction. I don't know if that's true, but you haven't done a good job of challenging the Mother Jones article.The article evaluated 60+ examples of shootings, and in only one case did a civilian with a concealed weapon play a role in limiting or stopping the attack. That's a fair critique of the argument that a more heavily armed civilian population can help stop or limit these incidents. In response, you pointed out that maybe the civilians were so effective they prevented incidents from becoming mass shootings in the first plcae. That's a fair point, too. However, you listed only four counterexamples, and three of them turned out not to be civilians at all. That leaves you back where you started: staring down the Mother Jones data about armed civilians being pretty much ineffective, with virtually no examples or data to contradict their findings.

I think a fair point is that civilians can be trained to stop these types of things from occurring. You just can't be some dude who shoots off a gun in his backyard for fun every weekend. So maybe a compromise is CCW permits for people who regularly participate in the type of training you'd receive in the National Guard.

Yeah that's true. That's a reasonable takeaway from ATC's counterexamples.

And I absolutely agree that people who get military or police training would be an asset on the ground during these kind of incidents. Of course, the only people I know of who have military and police training and police and military. Which is why they're being suggested as the people to have guarding schools by some, I'd imagine.

 

[Schlzm]

Except that this still leaves the main point: the idea of civilians trained to use weapons can stop these mass shootings is almost entirely a fiction. I don't know if that's true, but you haven't done a good job of challenging the Mother Jones article.The article evaluated 60+ examples of shootings, and in only one case did a civilian with a concealed weapon play a role in limiting or stopping the attack. That's a fair critique of the argument that a more heavily armed civilian population can help stop or limit these incidents. In response, you pointed out that maybe the civilians were so effective they prevented incidents from becoming mass shootings in the first plcae. That's a fair point, too. However, you listed only four counterexamples, and three of them turned out not to be civilians at all. That leaves you back where you started: staring down the Mother Jones data about armed civilians being pretty much ineffective, with virtually no examples or data to contradict their findings.

I think a fair point is that civilians can be trained to stop these types of things from occurring. You just can't be some dude who shoots off a gun in his backyard for fun every weekend. So maybe a compromise is CCW permits for people who regularly participate in the type of training you'd receive in the National Guard.

People seem to forget that Military, Police, Security all started out as a civy and that in most cases the training isn't all that rigorous or difficult. The above National Guard is kind of a misnomer since not all members are infantry or in a similar position. You can be in the guard yet work in the finance office and spend your drill weekends doing audits and cutting paychecks...Schlzm

 

[moleculo]

Except that this still leaves the main point: the idea of civilians trained to use weapons can stop these mass shootings is almost entirely a fiction. I don't know if that's true, but you haven't done a good job of challenging the Mother Jones article.The article evaluated 60+ examples of shootings, and in only one case did a civilian with a concealed weapon play a role in limiting or stopping the attack. That's a fair critique of the argument that a more heavily armed civilian population can help stop or limit these incidents. In response, you pointed out that maybe the civilians were so effective they prevented incidents from becoming mass shootings in the first plcae. That's a fair point, too. However, you listed only four counterexamples, and three of them turned out not to be civilians at all. That leaves you back where you started: staring down the Mother Jones data about armed civilians being pretty much ineffective, with virtually no examples or data to contradict their findings.

I think a fair point is that civilians can be trained to stop these types of things from occurring. You just can't be some dude who shoots off a gun in his backyard for fun every weekend. So maybe a compromise is CCW permits for people who regularly participate in the type of training you'd receive in the National Guard.

Yeah that's true. That's a reasonable takeaway from ATC's counterexamples.

And I absolutely agree that people who get military or police training would be an asset on the ground during these kind of incidents. Of course, the only people I know of who have military and police training and police and military. Which is why they're being suggested as the people to have guarding schools by some, I'd imagine.

there are gun ranges that offer tactical training on weekends and such. My gun buddy is an instructor at the local range, where they go through the same simulations and training that local PD's use.

 

[ATC1]

Why does this guy keep using the word "responsible" like it is the least bit relevant to the conversation?

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-set-january-deadline-gun-proposals-173610698--finance.html

Appealing to gun owners, Obama said he believes in the Second Amendment and the country's strong tradition of gun ownership. And he said "the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible."

Our president's words.

 

[Henry Ford]

Not surprising. 2 at a church, 2 at a school. Both of which are gun free zones. Point to where the shootings that occurred outside gun free zones, where a CCP has intervened and was considered a mass shooting.

Well, they're your examples, not mine. But here are a couple that fit your criteria:Shopping mall shooting in Tacoma, WashingtonAs a rampage unfolded in 2005, a civilian with a concealed-carry permit named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with his handgun. The shooter pumped several bullets into McKown, wounding six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.Courthouse shooting in Tyler, TexasIn 2005, a civilian named Mark Wilson, who was a firearms instructor, fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage [outside] the county courthouse. Wilson was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47.

 

[Blick]

There are lots of training classes available for those interested that instruct on the proper weapon control, shooting, and care. Most importantly, a lot of them are focused on the law and liablity. They go into great detail about what will happen to you, from a civil penalty perspective, if you shoot someone in a number of different scenarios.

Personally, I think everyone carrying a weapon should attend one of these class. Even if you've carried for years and think you'll have nothing to gain, you will.

 

[Apple Jack]

Why does this guy keep using the word "responsible" like it is the least bit relevant to the conversation?

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-set-january-deadline-gun-proposals-173610698--finance.html

Appealing to gun owners, Obama said he believes in the Second Amendment and the country's strong tradition of gun ownership. And he said "the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible."

Our president's words.

So what? That doesn't mean that the irresponsible ones are less of a threat or even that the responsible ones don't screw up and shoot people in accidents. Responsible/irresponsible is irrelevant in this debate. And the President said that in the process of making a case to restrict gun sales, not increase them.

 

[ATC1]

Why does this guy keep using the word "responsible" like it is the least bit relevant to the conversation?

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-set-january-deadline-gun-proposals-173610698--finance.html

Appealing to gun owners, Obama said he believes in the Second Amendment and the country's strong tradition of gun ownership. And he said "the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible."

Our president's words.

So what? That doesn't mean that the irresponsible ones are less of a threat or even that the responsible ones don't screw up and shoot people in accidents. Responsible/irresponsible is irrelevant in this debate. And the President said that in the process of making a case to restrict gun sales, not increase them.

You have not read all of my posts then.

 

[ATC1]

Except that this still leaves the main point: the idea of civilians trained to use weapons can stop these mass shootings is almost entirely a fiction. I don't know if that's true, but you haven't done a good job of challenging the Mother Jones article.The article evaluated 60+ examples of shootings, and in only one case did a civilian with a concealed weapon play a role in limiting or stopping the attack. That's a fair critique of the argument that a more heavily armed civilian population can help stop or limit these incidents. In response, you pointed out that maybe the civilians were so effective they prevented incidents from becoming mass shootings in the first plcae. That's a fair point, too. However, you listed only four counterexamples, and three of them turned out not to be civilians at all. That leaves you back where you started: staring down the Mother Jones data about armed civilians being pretty much ineffective, with virtually no examples or data to contradict their findings.

I think a fair point is that civilians can be trained to stop these types of things from occurring. You just can't be some dude who shoots off a gun in his backyard for fun every weekend. So maybe a compromise is CCW permits for people who regularly participate in the type of training you'd receive in the National Guard.

Yeah that's true. That's a reasonable takeaway from ATC's counterexamples.

And I absolutely agree that people who get military or police training would be an asset on the ground during these kind of incidents. Of course, the only people I know of who have military and police training and police and military. Which is why they're being suggested as the people to have guarding schools by some, I'd imagine.

there are gun ranges that offer tactical training on weekends and such. My gun buddy is an instructor at the local range, where they go through the same simulations and training that local PD's use.

Same here. A place where I took a class is now offering the class for free for the next 3 months to teachers, day care workers or school employees. All I wanted was to make people aware that while the goal of the president seems to be to not limit the 2nd amendment to those that are responsible, there are federal restrictions of gun free zones that seem to only restrict the responsible gun owner.

 

[Schlzm]

Except that this still leaves the main point: the idea of civilians trained to use weapons can stop these mass shootings is almost entirely a fiction. I don't know if that's true, but you haven't done a good job of challenging the Mother Jones article.The article evaluated 60+ examples of shootings, and in only one case did a civilian with a concealed weapon play a role in limiting or stopping the attack. That's a fair critique of the argument that a more heavily armed civilian population can help stop or limit these incidents. In response, you pointed out that maybe the civilians were so effective they prevented incidents from becoming mass shootings in the first plcae. That's a fair point, too. However, you listed only four counterexamples, and three of them turned out not to be civilians at all. That leaves you back where you started: staring down the Mother Jones data about armed civilians being pretty much ineffective, with virtually no examples or data to contradict their findings.

I think a fair point is that civilians can be trained to stop these types of things from occurring. You just can't be some dude who shoots off a gun in his backyard for fun every weekend. So maybe a compromise is CCW permits for people who regularly participate in the type of training you'd receive in the National Guard.

Yeah that's true. That's a reasonable takeaway from ATC's counterexamples.

And I absolutely agree that people who get military or police training would be an asset on the ground during these kind of incidents. Of course, the only people I know of who have military and police training and police and military. Which is why they're being suggested as the people to have guarding schools by some, I'd imagine.

there are gun ranges that offer tactical training on weekends and such. My gun buddy is an instructor at the local range, where they go through the same simulations and training that local PD's use.

Same here. A place where I took a class is now offering the class for free for the next 3 months to teachers, day care workers or school employees. All I wanted was to make people aware that while the goal of the president seems to be to not limit the 2nd amendment to those that are responsible, there are federal restrictions of gun free zones that seem to only restrict the responsible gun owner.

Laws only affect those willing to follow them. Funny how that works huh?Schlzm

 

[tom22406]

Maybe a good start would be to tell me exactly what a military style weapon is because I can take a .22 caliber rifle(very low on the scale)and turn it into something that looks like a military weapon.

Does this look like a military style weapon to you?

http://hammerbackguns.com/images/GERG2210LTD09N.jpg

That is a .22 caliber rifle that looks really mean but in reality has very little bite.

So the saying military style that is being thrown around is very misleading because you can take almost any gun a make it look that way if you please.

My guess is the rifle they are after is the higher caliber ones such as the AK47 and AR15 which,as has been pointed out before,are nothing close to what the military uses so again the term military style is very misleading.Is it because the guns look mean?Is it the higher caliber ones they are after?

Give me a list and that would be a great start because simply saying semi-automatic tells me very little.

 

[Apple Jack]

Why does this guy keep using the word "responsible" like it is the least bit relevant to the conversation?

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-set-january-deadline-gun-proposals-173610698--finance.html

Appealing to gun owners, Obama said he believes in the Second Amendment and the country's strong tradition of gun ownership. And he said "the vast majority of gun owners in America are responsible."

Our president's words.

So what? That doesn't mean that the irresponsible ones are less of a threat or even that the responsible ones don't screw up and shoot people in accidents. Responsible/irresponsible is irrelevant in this debate. And the President said that in the process of making a case to restrict gun sales, not increase them.

You have not read all of my posts then.

Who has? I've just spotted you using that word numerous times in a manner that suggests you think that matters.

 

[17seconds]

I think Piers Morgan has dedicated his show to bringing in pro-gun guests and screaming at them. He's already done it for 3 nights.

 

[ATC1]

Not surprising. 2 at a church, 2 at a school. Both of which are gun free zones. Point to where the shootings that occurred outside gun free zones, where a CCP has intervened and was considered a mass shooting.

Well, they're your examples, not mine. But here are a couple that fit your criteria:Shopping mall shooting in Tacoma, Washington

As a rampage unfolded in 2005, a civilian with a concealed-carry permit named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with his handgun. The shooter pumped several bullets into McKown, wounding six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.

Courthouse shooting in Tyler, Texas

In 2005, a civilian named Mark Wilson, who was a firearms instructor, fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage [outside] the county courthouse. Wilson was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47.

Unfortunate on the first one. More details:

During the course of the shooting, Brendan (Dan) McKown, a legally armed citizen, intervened. McKown drew his 9mm CZ pistol and verbally commanded Maldonado to put down his gun. Maldonado's response was to fire on McKown, striking him once in the leg and four times in the torso, damaging McKown's spine and leaving him paralyzed. In addition to McKown, five other people were shot but not seriously injured, and a seventh person received a non-gunshot injury. At least one other person in the mall at the time also pulled a gun on Maldonado but did not fire for fear of hitting innocent bystanders.[1]

Maldonado then took four people hostage in a Sam Goody store, including two employees, a customer, and a 12-year-old boy whom he only briefly held captive before releasing. The attack began shortly after noon, and the hostage situation lasted until four p.m. when Maldonado surrendered to a Tacoma police SWAT team without further incident.[2]

Hostages taken during the incident chronicle their story on Biography Channel's I Survived....

Very vague on details if the shooter was opening fire at the time McKown gave the verbal command. If someone has open fired, it is not the time to yell out commands. It may have resulted differently. However, no one died. Did his interaction draw fire to him instead of innocents, maybe. In the 2nd one.

As Wilson approached Arroyo from behind, Arroyo was taking aim at his son who he had already shot in the leg and wounded. Acting to defend the life of Arroyo's son, Wilson fired a round from approximately 50 feet which struck Arroyo in the back causing him to stumble and taking his attention away from his son. A witness who saw Wilson's round strike Arroyo reported seeing "white puffs of powder-like substance" come from Arroyo's clothing. This is believed to be the first time Arroyo was hit or injured during his attack on the courthouse.

Wilson was forced to take cover behind Arroyo's truck in a prone position and exchanged fire with Arroyo. As Arroyo began to approach Wilson's position, he stood up from behind cover and fired again, hitting Arroyo. Unknown to Wilson, Arroyo was wearing a bulletproof vest, rendering Wilson's shots ineffective. Arroyo eventually fired a shot that struck Wilson, who faltered and fell from the view of witnesses, face down behind Arroyo's truck. Arroyo then walked up to Wilson and fired three more shots at him, killing him.

Unlike the movies, sometimes the bad guy wins. However, the attention was drawn away from the boy and he is alive today because of Mark Wilson. Also, why anyone needs millitary body armor is a whole other discussion and one that should be addressed.

 

[tommyboy]

when i was on a boarding crew, we had to requalify every 6 months in order to carry weapons. So you had to prove marksmanship and gun handling safety on a range, but then the hard part was passing the 'scenarios" test. At the time, and this is 25 years ago, the test was you, standing in front of a giant projection screen with a .45 or 9MM (unloaded) in your hand, watching 10 different filmed scenarios unfold. The rules are simple, fail one scenario, fail the test. You have to pass 100%. The criteria is that you only fire at armed assailants, if you accidently fire at someone you think is an armed assailant but isn't, or if you fire at an armed person taht isn't making any aggressive actions, you fail. It was nerve wracking, because these weren't cartoon characters, but real people they filmed in real life scenarios and they'd make it tricky. Youd be watching the screen and see some dude, with his back turned toward you reaching down somewhere and hear "boarding officer, turn around with your hands where I can see them" or some command like that and then the dude wiould turn around suddenly with a baseball bat in his hands waving it around and yelling. Do you shoot? nope, he's just a crazy dude with a bat. then the guy starts ranting, you're holding your aim at him, the voice on the screen is telling him to calm down and drop the bat, so he bends down and turns around, you can't see what he's doiong and then suddenly jerks back upright ....hands are empty now. Hopefully you didn't shoot his ### because if you did, you're not on the boarding crew anymore. Othersw would be where 3 people are standing abreast of each other, one of them turns around grabs a sandwich, one bends over and grabs a lifevest and one reaches into his pocket and pulls out a pistol and starts to aim it at you. They do this simultaneously and suddenly so you have to make a quick decision and act quickly. If you shoot the wrong dude or don't shoot the right dude fast enough, you die and the test is over. I hated those tests

 

[Novice2]

Why does body armor need to be legal?

Because that would make iron man a criminal.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Why does body armor need to be legal?

Is that what the response should be to anything that has ever been used in a crime?Make that thing illegal.It is an odd item for sure but I hate the idea of just making stuff illegal because people do illegal things with them.

 

[Schlzm]

Why does body armor need to be legal?

Is that what the response should be to anything that has ever been used in a crime?Make that thing illegal.It is an odd item for sure but I hate the idea of just making stuff illegal because people do illegal things with them.

Probably one of the few cases were something that prevents harm to oneself or others would be outlawed.Schlzm