Ok. I've got a practical, right-now real-impact solution...

[zsu2357]

How will more and more guns help anything? We need to keep guns out of the hands of those that would harm us. They do it all over the world and it works. They knew that even in the old west where decent towns made you check your guns with the Sheriff on arrival. We need to stop selling guns like they were candy and yes confiscate them from the mentally unstable and members of violent hate groups.

In other words I think you would be comfortable with U.K. style gun bans.

 

[trblmkr]

If you all want to reduce mass shootings everywhere, start by doing away with "gun free zones".... that's where over 90% of mass murders occur, because mass shooters don't want to run into armed citizens.

While I like the premise of your thread and agree that in this political age it is an idea that could be achieved: The Las Vegas shooting occurred in the presence of armed LEO and security. It was just well planned. And quite frankly, it is good it was not better planned. Because it could have been.
I would point to videos of LEO encounters where numerous rounds are discharged. With a small percentage hitting a target. Even when that target is a slow moving Suburban. While I do not want to be in the vicinity of criminals shooting at anyone, I have no interest of being in the vicinity of armed civilians shooting at, well, whatever. I do not trust anyone at all with my safety.
I live in an area unlikely to provide a target and will give consideration prior to going anyplace that may be a likely target. This attitude has next to no effect on my quality of life.
The rest of you can do whatever you like. It will have no effect on people killing people. Welcome to the new normal.

 

[zsu2357]

What's so funny about weapons of war in the hands of the mentally ill? Anyone on medications for mental problems should be put on the no gun list. In fact EVERYONE should be on the list until you prove that you are competent. You need to take a drivers test to get a licences to drive don't you?

So does that just mean gun owners or everyone you included. Who would say that you are competent? A drivers license is a privilege.

 

[UtahBill]

Incarceration ? Works for me...

 

[Evilroddy]

... for the school shootings.

It won't stop them all, but it will stop or mitigate many or most.

It doesn't depend on magically figuring out who might crack, or pie-in-the-sky-sometime-by-and-by when we get a perfect mental healthcare system, nor does it infringe on anyone's rights.


Security barriers and procedures in every school, and adequate armed security in every school.


By adequate I mean probably a five-man team per school on average. Some schools will need fewer, some more, but five is a good number for tactical coverage reasons. I might go into where I get that figure later.

The quickest way to stop an active shooter is with an armed defender. The easiest way to DETER a wanna-be shooter from trying it is the knowledge that he'd almost certainly be shot down before racking up his desired body count.

It would make a major impact, along with barriers and security procedures.



But a lot of people resist the idea. Some cite cost. Well, what is your children's safety worth to you?

Some say "OMG, gunbattles in the hallway people will die!" Well maybe maybe not but MORE will die if you let an active shooter have free rein, so get over it.

"OH but we don't want our little darlings exposed to armed guards with GUNS!!" Get over your squeamishness, what's more important their lives or your tender sensibilities... the truth is we all owe most of our safety to armed men of one sort or another, you're just able to ignore it most of the time.


As to cost....

I don't know about the barriers, but we have them at EVERY school in my little podunk town of 3,000, so your school can afford them.

Guards.... the cheapest way would be training and arming willing staff members but for some reason lots of people hate that idea, so we'll look at armed security guards.

$11-15/hour most places for one armed guard. Let's say 15/hr, we want competent well-trained guards. That's 30k/year at 40 hours/week.

About 100,000 schools in the USA. 5 man team per school average. 500,000 guards. x 30k a year. Cost is 15 billion a year.


We send far more than that in foreign aid to countries that hate us. We spend 600 billion on the military and a a couple trillion on social programs, welfare and various domestic spending.

Total expenditures for all schools in the USA is 634 billion. This is a fraction of that, 1/42nd of it to be precise... and it would probably eliminate 90% of school shootings.


Would you be ok with paying 1/42nd more for education so your kids can be ten times safer? Hey it even creates new jobs.


But we won't do it, because special snowflakes hate to admit that the best way to stop an armed murderer is with an armed defender, or people claim its too expensive, or etc.

Goshin:

Too complicated. Arm the students. Make the first week of the school year, from kindergarten to Grade 12, a crash-course in gun proficiency and maintenance. Then reinforce that training in an hour-long class and gun range drill once a week for the rest of the school year. Require every student to have a gun and have an armoury of guns-for-lend to allow the poorer kids to pack heat too. The start of each school year "will be the most wonderful time of the year" for the NRA, other gun-advocacy groups and the arms industry. And, as a bonus, I'd be willing to bet that teaching standards and student satisfaction would improve dramatically and homework levels would drop precipitously while cafeteria food and service would improve too! Don"t turn schools into prisons, turn them into armed camps with legions of frustrated, hormonal children and teenagers armed to the teeth and chafing at the bit to "defend themselves and the Second Amendment". Empower the young and let them take ownership of their own safety and their Constitution. It's the responsible thing to do.

Cheers.
A very Evilroddy.

 

[iguanaman]

I'm not implying anything. I'm posting my opinion - isn't that what you wanted when you started this thread? A discussion?

If the Vegas shooter didn't have an AR, it would have been much harder to shoot 500 people with a pistol from the 23rd floor of the Mandalay Bay.

Don't listen to their banter about how the AR-15 is not a one man killing machine. It is standard issue for all our soldiers (who deserve the best money can buy) and now they are a prerequisite for mass shooters. We were wrong to re-allow them and now we are getting the punishment. As some other poster indicated, it's a favorite weapon in "Call of Duty" and nothing else provides the "kick" this high velocity bullet proof vest puncturing gun does for them.

 

[Bucky]

... for the school shootings.

It won't stop them all, but it will stop or mitigate many or most.

It doesn't depend on magically figuring out who might crack, or pie-in-the-sky-sometime-by-and-by when we get a perfect mental healthcare system, nor does it infringe on anyone's rights.


Security barriers and procedures in every school, and adequate armed security in every school.


By adequate I mean probably a five-man team per school on average. Some schools will need fewer, some more, but five is a good number for tactical coverage reasons. I might go into where I get that figure later.

The quickest way to stop an active shooter is with an armed defender. The easiest way to DETER a wanna-be shooter from trying it is the knowledge that he'd almost certainly be shot down before racking up his desired body count.

It would make a major impact, along with barriers and security procedures.



But a lot of people resist the idea. Some cite cost. Well, what is your children's safety worth to you?

Some say "OMG, gunbattles in the hallway people will die!" Well maybe maybe not but MORE will die if you let an active shooter have free rein, so get over it.

"OH but we don't want our little darlings exposed to armed guards with GUNS!!" Get over your squeamishness, what's more important their lives or your tender sensibilities... the truth is we all owe most of our safety to armed men of one sort or another, you're just able to ignore it most of the time.


As to cost....

I don't know about the barriers, but we have them at EVERY school in my little podunk town of 3,000, so your school can afford them.

Guards.... the cheapest way would be training and arming willing staff members but for some reason lots of people hate that idea, so we'll look at armed security guards.

$11-15/hour most places for one armed guard. Let's say 15/hr, we want competent well-trained guards. That's 30k/year at 40 hours/week.

About 100,000 schools in the USA. 5 man team per school average. 500,000 guards. x 30k a year. Cost is 15 billion a year.


We send far more than that in foreign aid to countries that hate us. We spend 600 billion on the military and a a couple trillion on social programs, welfare and various domestic spending.

Total expenditures for all schools in the USA is 634 billion. This is a fraction of that, 1/42nd of it to be precise... and it would probably eliminate 90% of school shootings.


Would you be ok with paying 1/42nd more for education so your kids can be ten times safer? Hey it even creates new jobs.


But we won't do it, because special snowflakes hate to admit that the best way to stop an armed murderer is with an armed defender, or people claim its too expensive, or etc.

An utter waste of tax payer money.

When the people can get guns with a pending background check, that's the problem. When people can commit violent crimes in the military and not have it show up on a background check, that's the problem.

Arom Schools, libaries, malls, shopping centers, restaurants, etc...

Let's prevent criminals and the mentally ill from gaining access to guns instead of creating a tax on the middle class.

 

[Rucker61]

Don't listen to their banter about how the AR-15 is not a one man killing machine. It is standard issue for all our soldiers (who deserve the best money can buy)

There is no doctrine in the US military that calls for a single soldier to shoot a lot of people in a short time, especially unarmed people, and all weapons are procured to meet a military doctrine.

and now they are a prerequisite for mass shooters.

Not even close. Handguns remain the most commonly used type of firearm in mass shootings.

We were wrong to re-allow them and now we are getting the punishment.

We never disallowed them. You should eradicate your ignorance and go found out just what the 1994 AWB actually did. No guns were confiscated and perfectly functiona AR15s were available for purchase through the AWB.

As some other poster indicated, it's a favorite weapon in "Call of Duty" and nothing else provides the "kick" this high velocity bullet proof vest puncturing gun does for them.

You realize that COD is just a game and that every single hunting rifle will penetrate armor?

 

[iguanaman]

So does that just mean gun owners or everyone you included. Who would say that you are competent? A drivers license is a privilege.

Gun ownership is a "right" that is only open to mentally stable adults and non felons. Just like your 1st amendment rights do not extend to inciting violence or causing harm, your 2nd amendment rights do not extend to everyone. Do you agree that a mentally unstable or violent person should not be allowed to purchase guns?

 

[Bucky]

So does that just mean gun owners or everyone you included. Who would say that you are competent? A drivers license is a privilege.

Notice other countries just fine without a "right" to own a gun.

Even little Cuba has extremely low gun violence despite being a 3rd world country.

 

[Rucker61]

Gun ownership is a "right" that is only open to mentally stable adults and non felons. Just like your 1st amendment rights do not extend to inciting violence or causing harm, your 2nd amendment rights do not extend to everyone. Do you agree that a mentally unstable or violent person should not be allowed to purchase guns?

Are all mentally unstable persons dangerous? What defines a violent person? A criminal record?

 

[iguanaman]

There is no doctrine in the US military that calls for a single soldier to shoot a lot of people in a short time, especially unarmed people, and all weapons are procured to meet a military doctrine.



Not even close. Handguns remain the most commonly used type of firearm in mass shootings.



We never disallowed them. You should eradicate your ignorance and go found out just what the 1994 AWB actually did. No guns were confiscated and perfectly functiona AR15s were available for purchase through the AWB.



You realize that COD is just a game and that every single hunting rifle will penetrate armor?

But they don't look so cool and they don't accept 30 round mags and work full auto with bumpstocks. What more important is the badass military look though. It means "serious" to any mass shooter.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/14/ar-15-mass-shootings/339519002/

 

[iguanaman]

Are all mentally unstable persons dangerous? What defines a violent person? A criminal record?

Hmm so you don't think the FBI should have followed up on the tip they got because the Fla shooter had no criminal record? His facebook page was enough to disqualify him from purchasing that AR-15. Don't you think?

 

[Rucker61]

Hmm so you don't think the FBI should have followed up on the tip they got because the Fla shooter had no criminal record? His facebook page was enough to disqualify him from purchasing that AR-15. Don't you think?

What you wrote has nothing to do with my post. Are all mentally unstable persons dangerous? Every mental health organization in the country would say "no".

Was this guy worth investigating? By every indication, yes. He is not the poster child for all mentally ill persons.

 

[Rucker61]

But they don't look so cool and they don't accept 30 round mags and work full auto with bumpstocks. What more important is the badass military look though. It means "serious" to any mass shooter.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/14/ar-15-mass-shootings/339519002/

Yet the VT shooter chose a tiny concealable handgun with 10 round magazines, and kill almost twice as many people as the Florida shooter did with an AR.

Do you think that all 4 million owners of ARs own them just to look cool?

 

[Nap]

But they don't look so cool and they don't accept 30 round mags and work full auto with bumpstocks. What more important is the badass military look though. It means "serious" to any mass shooter.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/14/ar-15-mass-shootings/339519002/

From your link:

Dean Hazen, owner of The Gun Experts in Mahomet, Ill., and a master firearms instructor, said the reason mass shooters are turning to the AR-15 is due to a "copy-cat" mentality more than any feature of the rifle.*

"It’s really just a perception thing," Hazen said. "There are rifles that are more powerful and more dangerous than that, but they're not being used."

Hazen said the AR-15 has "gotten a bad rap." He believes mass shooters generally don't know much about guns and choose the AR-15 because of the reputation it has gotten from being used in other mass shootings.

"Thank God they don't know any better because if they did they would use much more effective weapons," Hazen said.*

I have been trying to explain this to people on here for awhile.

Also, what makes you think a handgun won't accept a 30 round magazine? You can purchase a 50 round drum if you just really want one. You can also get a bumpfire stock for a handgun as well.

 

[Nap]

Yet the VT shooter chose a tiny concealable handgun with 10 round magazines, and kill almost twice as many people as the Florida shooter did with an AR.

Do you think that all 4 million owners of ARs own them just to look cool?

It's over 8 million now if not more when you add in guns like the AK47, SCAR, AUG, 1927A-1, Tavor X95, etc

This is why the entire idea of banning the AR-15 is rather ridiculous. The vast majority of civilian arms are semi-automatic, to ban them all would effectively be unconstitutional and banning one specific rifle is pointless. They tried to get around it with the previous ban by limiting the amount of attachments placed on the rifle and it failed miserably because all they had to do was remove one item and the gun is now legal.

 

[cpgrad08]

A Police State won't protect us from shooters unless they disarm the public which is what all police states do. How about some common sense about who is allowed to buy weapons. We don;'t allow 18 year olds to drink because they can't handle it responsibly but they can buy an AR-15?

If we do that then 18 years should not be allowed to drafted, voted, volunteer for military service either. Please I'm for lowering the drinking age to 18 and giving all rights and privileges of adulthood at 18.

 

[Harshaw]

Well, IMHO you have two classes of people who do this;

1. Mentally ill; mentally disturbed; reduced capacity. We need a real mental health infrastructure to deal with this. Lots of talk about it so I'll leave it at that for now.

2. Depraved mind: a person who isn't really mentally ill but just has no respect for human life or care about the havoc he causes. We seem to have more of that these days, or at least more of it acted out in bloody violence, than used to be the case. 50 years ago we had plenty of guns but few school shootings; today we have NICS background checks and lots of new laws and more security but still more school shootings. Why?

Well IMHO what you had 50-60 years ago that you don't now... God and moral teaching were welcome in school, but not now.... morality was viewed more as an absolute but now it is not merely relative but flexible as putty... more married couples staying married and one staying home with the kids... more notion that teaching children right from wrong was essential rather than oppressive to their budding self-esteem... you didn't have a monsterously huge 24/7 news cycle the fed shamelessly on blood and drama and gave shooters the notoriety they crave... and maybe real courage was more common when we were a nation of people who believed in things more important than ourselves, whether those things were God, country or civic responsibility.

I'm tempted to add "realistic video games portraying mayhem" as something we didn't have, but I'm unsure about that one. We had John Wayne movies, westerns, kung-fu flicks, lots of violent movies (even if less graphic)... yet for some reason we sort of knew that trying to play Ok Corral in real life wasn't going to end well.

More of us were hunters or target shooters and had a realistic appraisal of the damage guns do and the reality of taking a life, even if an animal's.


Those are some of my thoughts; lotta people will hate and disagree with most of it; oh well.

I agree with you that moral absolutes are scoffed and shunned, replaced by moral equivalencies, where the values of our society are said to be no different from those of a more pernicious society, or, more personally, the conduct of a moral person is said to be equivalent to that of an immoral one.

I don't know that it's necessarily religion itself which is the linchpin, but definitely an ironclad moral code of some kind. "If it feels good, do it" isn't it.

I think there's a general shunning of responsibility in our society, a general lack of expectations in ourselves and in others. Who's teaching people that killing innocents is a terrible wrong? Is anyone? People may scoff at that, and say that people should just know it instinctively (apparently), but any look at human history shows the foolishness of that. "Empathy," they say. If you need to be taught morality, you lack "empathy." Well, empathy isn't as instinctive as people seem to want to think. Empathy needs to be taught. Who's teaching it? And in what way?

There's a commercial out there right now, where some kid's dad is mocking the kid over the phone for not knowing what a lug wrench is. It's supposed to be funny. Did it occur to anyone involved that the dad is actually mocking the kid for not knowing something that it was his responsibility to have taught his kid? Simply put, if your kid is out there with the car and doesn't know how to change a tire, that's your own failure as a parent, because it's on you to equip your kid with the skills he needs to deal with having the car. If he doesn't have those skills, you shouldn't let him have the car.

It's just an illustration of a general decline in responsibility, and an instillation into people of a sense of responsibility.

Even the people right now who are flooding Facebook, Twitter, and innumerable message boards with rage and fury and demands that "something" be done aren't going to do anything other than that. They're doing just enough to make themselves feel righteous, and patting each other on the back for their moral superiority, but they aren't actually taking any responsibility to do anything. They'll go back to whatever is they do every day and not act on a word they said.

Responsibility is hard work. People don't want to work that hard.

 

[Harshaw]

If we do that then 18 years should not be allowed to drafted, voted, volunteer for military service either. Please I'm for lowering the drinking age to 18 and giving all rights and privileges of adulthood at 18.

I'm for changing everything to 21.

 

[Rucker61]

But they don't look so cool and they don't accept 30 round mags and work full auto with bumpstocks. What more important is the badass military look though. It means "serious" to any mass shooter.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/02/14/ar-15-mass-shootings/339519002/

No, guaranteed media coverage means serious to a mass shooter.

 

[Goshin]

An utter waste of tax payer money.

When the people can get guns with a pending background check, that's the problem. When people can commit violent crimes in the military and not have it show up on a background check, that's the problem.

Arom Schools, libaries, malls, shopping centers, restaurants, etc...

Let's prevent criminals and the mentally ill from gaining access to guns instead of creating a tax on the middle class.

Your bias on this subject blinds you to the obvious, which is that no form of gun control is going to have a serious impact on this problem, short of a total police state.

But this thread isn't about that, and I don't intend to engage with you on this topic in this thread.

 

[zsu2357]

Don't listen to their banter about how the AR-15 is not a one man killing machine. It is standard issue for all our soldiers (who deserve the best money can buy) and now they are a prerequisite for mass shooters. We were wrong to re-allow them and now we are getting the punishment. As some other poster indicated, it's a favorite weapon in "Call of Duty" and nothing else provides the "kick" this high velocity bullet proof vest puncturing gun does for them.

The AR-15 standard military issue? When did that happen? Someone else that talks and talks but doesn't know what hes talking about. You guys need to get a clue.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Maybe stopping children being gunned down could do without real impacts.

 

[zsu2357]

Don't listen to their banter about how the AR-15 is not a one man killing machine. It is standard issue for all our soldiers (who deserve the best money can buy) and now they are a prerequisite for mass shooters. We were wrong to re-allow them and now we are getting the punishment. As some other poster indicated, it's a favorite weapon in "Call of Duty" and nothing else provides the "kick" this high velocity bullet proof vest puncturing gun does for them.

The AR-15 standard military issue? When did that happen? Someone else that talks and talks but doesn't know what hes talking about. You guys need to get a clue.That video was really telling. For all we know the tank was shot first. What threat level was the vest,hell a .22 magnum could do that. I know.