TargetTalk

BenEnglishTX wrote:Can we all stipulate that active shooter scenarios are, pretty much by definition, "rare, exceptional circumstances"?

Sure, agreed. But you folks in the US are apparently about to face some sort of sweeping gun legislation aren't you? Based on these rare, exceptional circumstances? So what counter-proposals can you offer which are likely to be considered as meriting discussion in these particular circumstances?

BenEnglishTX wrote:If so, then, having actually been in an active-shooter situation where I was the specific target...

(Not snipping your words for any other reason than to prevent unnecessary re-reading.) Wow, that is a very strange situation. Your luck was amazing, as was that of the whole crowd. Must have been one severely drunk shooter. In this case I can see that if one of the 101 or so people there had had a weapon and known how to use it effectively (ie; single shot to drop the shooter, as the flash would have given away their position and returned fire would be virtually inevitable), the guy might have been stopped. But it seems taking cover and/or getting the hell out of there worked...

I found myself confronted by a very drunk guy intent on murdering me about 15 years ago. I looked at him the wrong way in a pub as I ate dinner and he was busy yelling at a guy nearby. I was fortunate that he only had a fist knife, and that I was able to use the few seconds separating us to explain to him that there was a large crowd behind the windows I was in front of and that at least a few witnesses were going to put him in jail... his car being right there as well. Once he's slowed down I further detailed how uncomfortable an average skinny guy like him was going to be in a federal prison, even if it were only for a couple of years. By the time he backed down a little I was hoofing it out of there. If he'd had a gun I'd be dead now. Even if I'd had a gun. He started about 15 feet from my position. No way he would have missed, at least if he'd had a few shots in a gun. Any cop with a lot of experience would tell you the same. So my situation would seem to balance against your situation, right? Sure, a cop would have a gun, and would defend having that gun... but the cop would be dead too, if that guy had been pointing a gun at the cop.

BenEnglishTX wrote:OTOH, some situations aren't so simple. Before cell phones when I was serving as an Officer for a US TLA, my boss sent me out on what should have been a milk run to talk to someone who was in a bit of trouble. It should have been a 5-minute chat to answer a few questions, more of a public relations outreach than anything else. The guy turned out to be a psycho who held me with a gun (next to him on the side table; he never touched it but the threat was clear) for most of a day....
... In both cases, I would have been much better served if I had been armed. In both cases, the bad actor didn't actually hurt anyone due to their own incompetence or lack of *real* motivation. If, however, either of them had been just a bit more determined, I wouldn't be here today because in both cases I was unarmed in accordance with Texas law at the time.

(again just edited for brevity in my quoted text) Again, a very stressful situation and I'm glad you got out alive. No one should have their life stolen over a job, or money, or whatever. But I question the conclusion jumped to, that you having a concealed or open firearm would have helped your situation. Do you seriously think you could have out-drawn the guy, with his pistol on the table? He plainly felt otherwise or he'd have been holding it, and 9 times out of 10 you'd probably lose if you had to go fishing for a concealed weapon.

BenEnglishTX wrote:All in all, I prefer to deal with crazy people by running away. I also realize there are some situations where you simply can't do anything; I've lost co-workers to bombs on two occasions and I witnessed the complete emotional destruction of a group of people temporarily officed near me on 9/11 as they watched all their co-workers, the ones who hadn't been sent out on this particular job, die right in front of them on TV.

Good for you on the running away thing. Agreed, though I have intervened a couple of times with minor physical force when that seemed the better plan to prevent further injury to third parties.

I don't see what the 9/11 attacks have to do with this, and would venture to suggest that 9/11 has been milked about enough by Americans by now, having inspired well over 100,000 civilian fatalities in a couple of non-US countries and federal initiatives which have vastly curtailed US citizens' expectations of freedom and privacy and STILL done little if anything to provide any actual protection against actual (not CIA/FBI fabricated/encouraged plots) terrorist plots. Yes, the lives lost that day should never have been lost. I cried that day right alongside Americans. It was a hateful, cynical, cowardly act. But using it still as some sort of justification for arming the populace just doesn't compute, just as Sandy Hook should not be used in that way. Nor should Sandy Hook nor any other mass-murder be used to complete disarm the US now, as I've said quite clearly in a comment just earlier today. But isn't the discussion about practical, reasonable changes which might actually help the latter? No increase in gun carrying among the citizenry is going to change the likelihood of terrorism (extremely, incredibly rare the USA by the way, compared to home-grown gun deaths and injuries among civilians), but it could well further degrade an already violence-prone culture.

BenEnglishTX wrote:You're not really familiar with the problem of wild hog infestations in the southern and southwestern U.S., are you? Yes, it's hunting, and it's best done with .308 semi-autos with 20-round (or more) magazines and night-vision optics. The whole idea is to slaughter large numbers of the damn things.

I wasn't, until this morning, when a CBC radio report informed me that your imported wild boars are becoming a significant problem in Manitoba and Saskatchewan as well. Oh dear. You've leaked wild boars, apparently. Thanks for that. Can't wait for them to come out West and liven things up out here. Seriously though, when will people learn that importing animals in aid of a) eating more kinds of meat or b) having something more fun to shoot at is a terrible, stupid idea? Especially considering that meat is entirely unnecessary for thriving human health. Where does one even begin with such a culture... It's awfully tempting for this aging vegetarian to just turn away and try to pretend it's all someone else's problem. But hey, why not? I mean the hunters seem only too pleased to have a self-created emergency on their hands, which can only be handled by even more guns, right? The parallel with the NRA's arguments around school security seems so sadly similar...

What about trapping? Oh yeah, harmless native species also caught, so that's out. Poisoning? Same problem. Why not introduce a virus? What could possibly go wrong? Am I making myself clear? Escalation is not going to fix the boar problem. Do I know what is? Of course not. I'm not a wildlife scientist, not even a prairie hunter or farmer. Only learned a bit about the problem today, and my first reaction was to shake my head in sorrow at the stupidity and selfishness of our species. The follow-up around shooting them all reminded me with not a little twinge of psychic pain of the Australian rabbit problem. Again man-made, no natural predator, rapid breeding, and boom, a continent-wide plague. Poisons didn't fix it. A virus didn't fix it. And hey, it threw pretty much every other grazing species into peril, most news-worthy being the imported sheep crop. And of course kangaroos and everything else on the ground. But did Australia learn? Nope. Imported cane toads to fix their mosquito problem. Brilliant. Look it up if you haven't seen the brilliant documentary on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cane_Toads ... al_History
From what I recollect one of the most effective means of eliminating the things was driving aggressively, just squashing as many as possible while out on errands. Perhaps that could solve America's gun violence problem too? Just declare open season on those with suspect tendencies towards violence.

Or as one wag recently framed it; make a smart bullet which upon leaving the gun immediately scans all available databases for information pointing the the most evil person within range, then kills that person... with the odds being that the search results would point toward the person who fired the smart bullet in the first place, rendering the local situation safer in mere hundredths of a second.

I hope you'll consider pardoning my veerings into dark humour. This situation, this discussion, just seems to lead me in that direction. It's so strange reading contributions from apparently intelligent and reasoning and caring people who are obviously deeply concerned about the potential for yet more innocent lives being taken, and yet so bound up in their 'rights' that they cannot even bring themselves to consider any option outside what's beeing spoon fed them by the NRA. The NRA, a powerful, heavily industry-funded lobby group which was not so long ago very publicly represented by the star of 'Planet of the Apes' and other Hollywood gems. Hollywood, which also delivered Ronald Reagun and his Star Wars plan and trickle-down economics. Why not let some of the less entertaining, but deeper-thinking minds be your influences for a while? Has anyone asked the philosophers what they think, for instance? Or the social scientists? A lot of people in forums are quoting history, talking about dictators taking guns from their people, but has anyone actually asked a historian for modern insights based upon analyses of history?

BenEnglishTX wrote:I couldn't agree more. Gotta give ya props when you hit one right on the head.

Why thank you Ben, so nice to get something right at least occasionally. ;)

BenEnglishTX wrote:

Gerard wrote:No competition I've heard of requires more than 5 shots in quick succession, but I may well be very ignorant here so please advise of any ISSF or whatever disciplines which do.

Happily.

Looks like fun and apparently a big deal for quite a few Dutch shooters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_wKJDz ... re=related

3-Gun is definitely fun, even if I'm too fat and old to take part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cakpLdxcvJI

IPSC definitely qualifies, though this vid looks a little different than what I'm accustomed to since it's in Greece. I love seeing the way things are done elsewhere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWe1a_PQ_s4

Most people think of IDPA as a pistol game but it's not always. I love the way the Range Officer helps the somewhat inexperienced shooter in this video make his way through the course - firm, fair, corrective without being as ass, basically being a good Range Officer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi0NrItQLO4

There are a bunch more but that should give you a taste.

Taste? Well I gave about 5 minutes to 3 of the videos, and I'm left with a very bitter taste. Human-shaped targets dominate. Military-like simulations of battle with frequently humorous representations of homes, cafes, a donkey and a cart, dancing police officers... The range officer did his job, sure. So what? His job is to keep everyone relatively safe, including himself and the shooter in play. He'd better be very sharp and in control or someone's going to get hurt with such huge numbers of rounds being blasted all over the place. And my ears! Should have turned the volume way down, but I wanted to hear what it was like. Which was insane. Again confirmed that I want nothing at all to do with firearms. Too noisy, too dangerous. I've quoted her before but no harm doing so again: Ursula LeGuin put it so well in 'The Dispossessed' - "Excess is excrement." Just like the wild boar problem borne of the desire (not need) for a variety of experiences in meat flavour and in hunting sport, there is no need for this kind of shooting. It's purely about fun for those who find it fun. And as with 4x4 nonsense, high-performance snowmobiling (which wastes a lot of resources in my country on avalanche rescues every winter as these rich fools 'high line', a practice well established as being deadly), quad-runners for kids (hundreds of permanent spinal injuries every year in Canada and who knows how many elsewhere, mostly involving children), and lord knows what other nonsense people with too much money and leisure time want to call recreation. So many of these absurd displays strike me as being symptomatic of an ill culture. Children on this continent go to bed hungry every night. Millions of them. Where are our priorities?

Sure we can do this sort of nonsense. But why? Does your obvious fascination with such excess override the actual need for building a safer society? Does this kind of activity not breed more machismo, taking us further away from a more harmonious existence? Or does pointing a powerful gun, running a few yards here and there (huge belly jiggling all over the place in one case, providing the only near-laugh I almost-got from those videos) and punching holes in simulated human beings somehow promote a sense of fellowship with one's fellow animals? I'm just not seeing it.

If you're going to ban one gun then ban them all. The anti's should have the courage to move forward the real agenda. Instead they get the people to fracture within, "I hunt so it doesn't bother me", "I shoot ISSF so it doesn't bother me". The fact that they pretend that sporting uses are acceptable is just a ploy to divide gun owners.

Here's the planned progression

1. Semi-Auto "military looking" Firearms - rarely used in crimes
2. Handguns - used in crimes more often
3. NFA items - very expensive, full auto, suppressor, SBR's, extremely rarely used in crimes (none that I know of)
4. Shotguns
5. Semi auto hunting rifles
6. Hunting rifles above certain calibre


At this point doesn't really matter. Some of the above may get lumped together if the anti's are lucky.

I guess then we will be back to bows and arrows, crossbows, and swords to kill one another, humans were pretty proficient with those implements in the past so I'm sure they'll pick it up again. Look at Rwanda hundreds of thousands killed with little more than machetes.

I guess we should all make sure our leisure activities meet with your approval Gerard? By the way when you respond to my posts with things like "your government" maybe you should actually take in some of the details because unfortunately my government is the same as your government. Just one more example of you not knowing the facts even though they are plainly there.

Here's another question, what do you propose they do with all the guns that are in the hands of civilians? Buy them? Confiscate them? Lets hear your thousand word essay on that aspect.

Here's an article that attempts to deal with the actual problem, rather than feel good solutions.

http://news.yahoo.com/focus-mentally-il ... 00271.html

BenEnglishTX wrote:

Gerard wrote: So the question; does anyone seriously believe they can out-gun an active shooter, except in rare, exceptional circumstances?

Can we all stipulate that active shooter scenarios are, pretty much by definition, "rare, exceptional circumstances"?


Eventually, his alcohol intake and my painstaking attempts to instill in him a sense of me as a person seemed to kick in at roughly the same time and he just said "I guess you're OK. Go ahead and go." I backed out, ran to my car, and burned rubber. He was gone by the time I could get the guys with badges and guns to the site since he had lured me to an abandoned house and, frankly, I didn't have enough to give them except a description and the fake ID info provided by the guy.

In both cases, I would have been much better served if I had been armed. In both cases, the bad actor didn't actually hurt anyone due to their own incompetence or lack of *real* motivation. If, however, either of them had been just a bit more determined, I wouldn't be here today because in both cases I was unarmed in accordance with Texas law at the time.

I strongly believe that I should be allowed to carry a concealed firearm anywhere and my experience leads me to conclude that such a firearm could be productively used during at least some dangerous scenarios.

All in all, I prefer to deal with crazy people by running away.

This is interesting because I think that this is a situation where pro and anti look at the same situation and see very different things. Perhaps it would have been better if you were armed but at the same time if you had been the situation could more than likely have been escalated. If you had managed to shoot either person how, exactly, would the situation be better? You would have been sued and possibly charged with a crime and then suffered the consequences from that. Hardly better. Your two examples to me illustrate a best possible outcome.

I lived the past 20 years in NYC and the last 3 in Bed Stuy on a very rough block. We lived across the street from a crack house and within a few months I was threatened by the local dealer. More shaken down really. He came to my home and told me he kept someone from stealing my motorcycle. I said thanks and the next day he came back and asked for money. This back and forth continued until one night he threatened me by saying he needed money and was recently released from prison for attempted murder and "I don't want to have to do that kind of shit but I'll do what I have to do..."

This would have been a good situation to have a gun right? Just show it and you've established your dominance without even using it. No one will fuck with me or my family (I lived there with my wife and one year old and my mother in law). It would also have risked escalating the situation.

Instead I talked my way out of it. I empathized and I flanked myself and I didn't give him a cent but I went to his mother and gave her a gift. While I could have threatened him I went the other way. After that we were "made" on the block. That family protected us, told us when the cops were giving parking tickets and we never worried about trouble again.

Sure, if he or I had had a gun it would have been very different. To me much of the gun culture is about having one so you don't have to engage in diplomacy. It's an answer borne of testosterone.

In answer to the question what would have helped prevent Sandy? I said earlier - better doors. Pretty simple.

In my conceal carry class the instructor stressed that running away is always the best answer. Most in the class hated that answer because it flew in the face of the fantasy of being the tough guy hero.

Regardless I'll grant you that banning a style of weapon is a poor answer but Biden so far has shown that he's most leaning toward suggesting universal background checks and capacity limits. I can understand the argument against capacity limits (although I don't agree) but tell me why universal background checks are bad?

Gregor

Pat McCoy wrote:zuckerman wrote:

734 deaths since sandy hook

But, not by law abiding citizens.

well, I would argue that you are wrong in your assumption, (been waiting very long to zing me with that? smiley here) this number of gunshots deaths could very well include legitimate armed response by police, I have not researched the numbers within the reporting to that depth, but because the nra has seen fit to force congress to ban any attempts to study guns and the resulting gunshot deaths in this country.... it is very difficult to gather the data. the numbers I give are by their very nature, incomplete, they come from one guy who is posting them and appears to be using an algorithm to scan news reports for gun shot deaths ( my GUESS, from the type of source he gives to support the numbers)

zuckerman wrote:I have not researched the numbers within the reporting to that depth, but because the nra has seen fit to force congress to ban any attempts to study guns and the resulting gunshot deaths in this country.... it is very difficult to gather the data.

This is also something Biden has put forth which makes sense. This and universal background checks seem like very common sense solutions that the NRA will (has) opposed.

Arguments against this?

Gregor

sakurama wrote:

zuckerman wrote:I have not researched the numbers within the reporting to that depth, but because the nra has seen fit to force congress to ban any attempts to study guns and the resulting gunshot deaths in this country.... it is very difficult to gather the data.

This is also something Biden has put forth which makes sense. This and universal background checks seem like very common sense solutions that the NRA will (has) opposed.

Arguments against this?

Gregor

Yes, most of you arguing for a federally imposed solution don't realize that the states have substantially more power in determining how they regulate transactions that occur entirely within one state, than the federal government does.
This is why the feds can madate that gun sales crossing state lines meets their requirement of an FFL to FFL transfer, but they can't regulate me selling a rifle or pistol to my neighbor, because only the state of Wyoming has the power to determine if I can do that or not.
The same would be true of any magazine bans or restrictions. It is not that the feds would not like to do it, they don't have the power to do it.

Furthermore, I don't believe Congress has the political will to do it.

http://thehill.com/homenews/administrat ... n-violence

Isabel1130: Yes, most of you arguing for a federally imposed solution don't realize that the states have substantially more power in determining how they regulate transactions that occur entirely within one state, than the federal government does.
This is why the feds can madate that gun sales crossing state lines meets their requirement of an FFL to FFL transfer, but they can't regulate me selling a rifle or pistol to my neighbor, because only the state of Wyoming has the power to determine if I can do that or not.
The same would be true of any magazine bans or restrictions. It is not that the feds would not like to do it, they don't have the power to do it. end quote

while that sounds good, there have been numerous precedents set that the fed can make laws that prohibit many aspects of gun control, and many other items, and including behavior, that the states have to abide by. ultimately, the citizens of our country are the arbitrators of what happens in our country. it is unfortunate that there exists a zombie that now lives forever in our country, one that has the right to an unlimited freedom of speech that includes the 'right' to pour unlimited amounts of money into our political system, to the detriment of our freedoms.
734 gunshot deaths since sandy hook

zuckerman wrote:Isabel1130: Yes, most of you arguing for a federally imposed solution don't realize that the states have substantially more power in determining how they regulate transactions that occur entirely within one state, than the federal government does.
This is why the feds can madate that gun sales crossing state lines meets their requirement of an FFL to FFL transfer, but they can't regulate me selling a rifle or pistol to my neighbor, because only the state of Wyoming has the power to determine if I can do that or not.
The same would be true of any magazine bans or restrictions. It is not that the feds would not like to do it, they don't have the power to do it. end quote

while that sounds good, there have been numerous precedents set that the fed can make laws that prohibit many aspects of gun control, and many other items, and including behavior, that the states have to abide by. ultimately, the citizens of our country are the arbitrators of what happens in our country. it is unfortunate that there exists a zombie that now lives forever in our country, one that has the right to an unlimited freedom of speech that includes the 'right' to pour unlimited amounts of money into our political system, to the detriment of our freedoms.
734 gunshot deaths since sandy hook

Zukerman, realize that all those federal regulations you talk about are pre Heller and'McDonald, so propose something and tell me why you think it would be constitutonal right now, not in 1992.

I realize that is kind of unfair, as I have a degree in this field, but you are the one telling me that a federal solution will work, so let's hear it.

If you want to change the subject to how money influences politics in this country. I would be happy to agree with you. Taking the money out of politics is fine with me, as long as you do it across the board. Don't want the NRA influencing public policy in this country? Fine, just as long as the public employee unions can't donate either, and your buddy Obama is no longer allowed to accept foreign cash, through untraceable credit card donations.

Along with taking the cash out of the legislative process, we need to repeal the 17th amendment, and pass another one where the States and districts pay their representatives and senators, and Congress can not pass laws that exempt themselves.

If you were serious about reducing the power of special interests, you would want that too, but that isnt what you really want, is it?

You want to hamstring the organizations, and people you disagree with, while allowing the ones you agree with to dominate the debate. Correct?

Gerard wrote:...you folks in the US are apparently about to face some sort of sweeping gun legislation aren't you? Based on these rare, exceptional circumstances? So what counter-proposals can you offer which are likely to be considered as meriting discussion in these particular circumstances?

1. Require states to feed disqualifying mental health data to the NICS.

2. Allow states to feed non-disqualifying but significant mental health data to the NICS.

3. Provisionally - If Obama is going to use executive orders, he should probably allow a NICS hold status based on non-disqualifying mental health data for any member of the household of the buyer. I'd even be willing to see those holds become denials subject to current appeal procedures. The purchases wouldn't be stopped but they would make the point to the buyer "You're buying a gun while there's a mentally off-kilter person in your house."

Why did I say "provisionally" in that previous paragraph? Because that process could easily be horrifically abused by the federal government and I feel sure it would be.

I would *not* mandate NICS checks on all transfers. Almost everyone who buys guns occasionally buys a gun through a dealer and goes through the check. People who adamantly refuse to make anything but face-to-face, private purchases have always been around and there's nothing that can be done about them. They'll continue to operate on the fringes as they always have.

4. Allow teachers to carry concealed weapons on their persons. For teachers who choose that path, subsidize advanced training.

One thing we learned from Newtown, if we didn't know it already, is that good teachers are amazingly protective of their students. They'll stand between them and evil even when they know they're going to die. It's only the truly good, dedicated ones I'm talking about who would self-select for this extra responsibility; we all remember who those special ones were from our years in school. *Those* people would make schools safer by virtue of being armed.

Armed guards, administrators, and volunteers would, I fear, be nothing more than "initial targets". My reaction to the NRA response of armed guards as an option for all schools was, as you might imagine, rather lukewarm.

Gerard wrote:Wow, that is a very strange situation. Your luck was amazing, as was that of the whole crowd.

Not really. He was using birdshot and was too far away. The only reason I knew I was the target was because the shooter and I had been involved in a near-crash on the highway just prior and he had demonstrated out-of-control road rage, trying to shoot me while we were driving. He failed at that, continued to follow me but lost sight of me when I arrived at my destination, then just let the pellets fly out of blind rage. Total time from first contact to his disappearance was probably less than 5 minutes.

Gerard wrote:I don't see what the 9/11 attacks have to do with this, ...

You're right to castigate me for citing 9/11. My point, though, was that I accept that there are times when I'm powerless. Those times, though, are rare and don't justify giving up. I'd prefer to always have the option of defending myself. There have been two drug-related home invasions in the neighborhood next to mine. If my house gets attacked in that way, I want the option of those thirty (or preferably more) round magazines. Thus, to me, "having the option" means not just concealed carry but also having high-capacity magazines in a semi-automatic rifle.

Gerard wrote:Why not let some of the less entertaining, but deeper-thinking minds be your influences for a while? ... A lot of people in forums are quoting history, talking about dictators taking guns from their people, but has anyone actually asked a historian for modern insights based upon analyses of history?

I think we do. John Lott and Clayton Cramer come immediately to mind. There are others.

Gerard wrote:...I'm left with a very bitter taste. Human-shaped targets dominate.

Yep, just like the Olympics, pre-war, and just like the Olympic "coffin" targets. Is that a problem?

Gerard wrote:...a donkey and a cart...

That was funny and had to be a leftover from a Cowboy Action match. It definitely looked out of place at an IPSC match.

Gerard wrote:...there is no need for this kind of shooting.

There is no need for 99% of everything done by everyone in the world. *Need* is not a valid criteria.

Gerard wrote:It's purely about fun for those who find it fun. And as with 4x4 nonsense, high-performance snowmobiling ... quad-runners ... and lord knows what other nonsense people with too much money and leisure time want to call recreation. So many of these absurd displays strike me as being symptomatic of an ill culture. Children on this continent go to bed hungry every night. Millions of them. Where are our priorities?

Your heart is in the right place. I really, really believe that. But it's an odd denial of reality to think that no one should be allowed to have any fun until every child is fed. Life doesn't work that way. We all wish it would but it just doesn't. Never has and never will.

Gerard wrote:Does this kind of activity not breed more machismo, taking us further away from a more harmonious existence?

I don't think so.

Gerard wrote:Or does <distasteful shooting activity> somehow promote a sense of fellowship with one's fellow animals? I'm just not seeing it.

Yeah, it kinda does. You have to be there to understand. Next time you come to Houston, PM me first. I'll pay for the machine gun rental. We'll blow some stuff up and have a good time. At the end, if you don't feel we've promoted fellowship between ourselves, I'll be surprised.

Or, if you'd rather just see it all from a distance and judge for yourself, head on down to Knob Creek next April. You'll either understand how much fun is to be had from shooting and how friends bond over shared recreation...or you'll be so disgusted you'll never want to talk to any of us again. Either way, you'll know.

BenEnglishTX wrote: 4. Allow teachers to carry concealed weapons on their persons. For teachers who choose that path, subsidize advanced training.

One thing we learned from Newtown, if we didn't know it already, is that good teachers are amazingly protective of their students. They'll stand between them and evil even when they know they're going to die. It's only the truly good, dedicated ones I'm talking about who would self-select for this extra responsibility; we all remember who those special ones were from our years in school. *Those* people would make schools safer by virtue of being armed.

I think you're really stretching if you think because a teacher would protect a child that they would also choose to conceal carry. They chose to be teachers and you're asking them to be police. While I'm not saying you won't get any takers it's asking quite a lot and it hardly qualifies as a solution.

Gregor

sakurama wrote:This is interesting because I think that this is a situation where pro and anti look at the same situation and see very different things.

Agreed.

sakurama wrote:Perhaps it would have been better if you were armed but at the same time if you had been the situation could more than likely have been escalated.

That would have been my decision to make. Instead, I was powerless to do anything other than go with the flow and hope everything worked out. It did, thank goodness. I don't like powerlessness being forced upon me by over-restrictive statutes that do not effectively impact criminals in the same way. That's unacceptable on many, many levels.

sakurama wrote:I lived ... I was threatened ... I went to his mother and gave her a gift. ...

So you chose to indirectly pay protection money. That is beyond sad. I really think that while we live in a world where the strong abuse the weak it's a sin to actively encourage that dynamic. Glad it worked out well for you but, seriously, do you have so little self-awareness that <ad hominem clipped>.

sakurama wrote:To me much of the gun culture is about having one so you don't have to engage in diplomacy.

Precisely the opposite. Google "Polite Society" (not just the Heinlein but also the shooting organization) and read.

sakurama wrote:...better doors. ...

Good idea.

sakurama wrote:In my conceal carry class the instructor stressed that running away is always the best answer. Most in the class hated that answer because it flew in the face of the fantasy of being the tough guy hero.

Then most of your class were ignorant and needed more instruction.

sakurama wrote:I can understand the argument against capacity limits (although I don't agree) but tell me why universal background checks are bad?

Off the top of my head, two reasons.

First, universal background checks create, by default, a universal gun registry. (Yes, I know that the check data is supposed to be destroyed after a certain period. There has been some evidence that this is not happening.) Given enough time, at most a generation, all firearms are transferred. At that point, the government knows where they are. Since registration, formal or de facto, is a necessary precursor to confiscation, most gun rights advocates view the universal background check as a back-door method of creating a registry that will eventually be used against them.

Remember when New York required the registration of "assault weapons"? It was just registration. No one was out to confiscate the guns. How many years was it before the NY "assault weapon" ban was enacted? After that, the people who had registered were the first to get a visit from the police.

Second, it's unnecessary and won't work. See my previous comment, above, to Gerard about how NICS checks would work better with more accurate, more comprehensive mental health data.

sakurama wrote:I think you're really stretching if you think because a teacher would protect a child that they would also choose to conceal carry. They chose to be teachers and you're asking them to be police. While I'm not saying you won't get any takers it's asking quite a lot and it hardly qualifies as a solution.

I don't think teachers who feel protective would choose to conceal carry. I imagine most wouldn't. I'm most assuredly not asking them to be police.

Only a small percentage would self-select for the additional responsibility. Just having those people on campus (and, by extension, society and our nutjobs also knowing they are on campus) would improve the situation. It would disincentivize potential shooters and potentially stop an active shooter.

I think it's an option worth exploring.

sakurama wrote:

BenEnglishTX wrote: 4. Allow teachers to carry concealed weapons on their persons. For teachers who choose that path, subsidize advanced training.

One thing we learned from Newtown, if we didn't know it already, is that good teachers are amazingly protective of their students. They'll stand between them and evil even when they know they're going to die. It's only the truly good, dedicated ones I'm talking about who would self-select for this extra responsibility; we all remember who those special ones were from our years in school. *Those* people would make schools safer by virtue of being armed.

I think you're really stretching if you think because a teacher would protect a child that they would also choose to conceal carry. They chose to be teachers and you're asking them to be police. While I'm not saying you won't get any takers it's asking quite a lot and it hardly qualifies as a solution.

Gregor

It has worked just fine in Utah. If you want to brush this off, because you personally dislike it, be honest about it, and propose something you think "will" work. (that will also be constitutional) Do I need to point out the hypocrisy of the democratic politicians in DC sending their kids to schools which all have multiple armed guards?

Isabel1130 wrote:

sakurama wrote:

BenEnglishTX wrote: 4. Allow teachers to carry concealed weapons on their persons. For teachers who choose that path, subsidize advanced training.

One thing we learned from Newtown, if we didn't know it already, is that good teachers are amazingly protective of their students. They'll stand between them and evil even when they know they're going to die. It's only the truly good, dedicated ones I'm talking about who would self-select for this extra responsibility; we all remember who those special ones were from our years in school. *Those* people would make schools safer by virtue of being armed.

I think you're really stretching if you think because a teacher would protect a child that they would also choose to conceal carry. They chose to be teachers and you're asking them to be police. While I'm not saying you won't get any takers it's asking quite a lot and it hardly qualifies as a solution.

Gregor

It has worked just fine in Utah. If you want to brush this off, because you personally dislike it, be honest about it, and propose something you think "will" work. (that will also be constitutional) Do I need to point out the hypocrisy of the democratic politicians in DC sending their kids to schools which all have multiple armed guards?

I have - it's been roundly ignored. Better, more secure doors at schools and on class rooms. Worked on planes.

I'm not brushing it off either. I'm just saying it's not much of a solution. Consider that solution in heavily urban areas with large classes. The only thing that has been shown to work in reducing the number of guns brought to school (which, I'll admit is different than reducing spree killings there) is to install metal detectors.

There are two.

Gregor

Gerard wrote:

BenEnglishTX wrote:...Looks like fun and apparently a big deal for quite a few Dutch shooters: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_wKJDz ... re=related

3-Gun is definitely fun, even if I'm too fat and old to take part: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cakpLdxcvJI

IPSC definitely qualifies, though this vid looks a little different than what I'm accustomed to since it's in Greece. I love seeing the way things are done elsewhere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWe1a_PQ_s4

Most people think of IDPA as a pistol game but it's not always. I love the way the Range Officer helps the somewhat inexperienced shooter in this video make his way through the course - firm, fair, corrective without being as ass, basically being a good Range Officer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi0NrItQLO4...

...I gave about 5 minutes to 3 of the videos,...

Which one did you skip? Based on your response, you saw the last two. I hope you didn't skip the first one. For folks who think of guns as distasteful, that Dutch video showed a sport so thoroughly sanitized of martial elements that I can't imagine anyone objecting to it. It also looked like a whole lot of fun.

sakurama wrote:...Better, more secure doors at schools and on class rooms. Worked on planes.

I'm not brushing it off either. I'm just saying it's not much of a solution. Consider that solution in heavily urban areas with large classes. The only thing that has been shown to work in reducing the number of guns brought to school (which, I'll admit is different than reducing spree killings there) is to install metal detectors.

As I've said to you previously, I agree that good doors are a good idea.

I can also understand the metal detectors in certain school districts. I spent all my working life (after the Murrah bombing) walking through metal detectors a dozen times a day so I know they don't necessarily cause harm and can help.

However (and here's where I go off the rails, agreeing with Gerard on the touchy-feely side of things), I think we've lost something. I don't think it sends a good message (if I'm repeating myself, I apologize; I don't know where I first posted this thought) to our young people if we educate them in buildings that could be converted to prisons just by changing the sign out front. That's emblematic of some sort of basic decency we seem to have lost as a society.

When I was a kid, half the vehicles in the high school parking lot were pickup trucks and half of those had a rifle in the gun rack. At least half the boys carried Buck knives on our belts. No one ever felt unsafe. The very occasional fistfight never involved a knife. No one would have brought a gun into the school without permission though I brought a few guns into the school building when I was 14 to set up a display on history and gun collecting. I knew to ask the principal for permission first. Can you imagine that happening in a high school today?

What we've lost and how are questions bigger than we're equipped to address and off-topic for this forum. Those are questions to be addressed in books and theses and scholarly debates and (the opposite of scholarly) political debates and by philosophers, theologians, gurus, politicians, moms and dads.

But some things remain clear. Restricting the freedoms of good people in a vain hope that bad people will be deterred doesn't work to any reasonable degree in any reasonable context.

Right now, the country is riding a wave of emotion and is not capable of rational action. If I could make just one suggestion to those in power it would be to table this for 6 months, let the immediate psychological pain grow a thick scab, and then talk about it once we've all regained the ability to keep the conversation purely rational.