I've never actually been in an active shooter situation, if that's what your asking? I'm 17. It's not exactly feasible that I'd be in charge of a SWAT team or the like either.
Enough lead starts flying around its bound to hit somebody. Especially at close range.
True, at any range.
I've been on a SWAT team and involved in 3 Calif. riots and been to dozens of active shooter incidents.
Actually, there is no credible statistical correlation between gun violence in gun free zones compared to non-gun free zones.
1) Less than a tiny fraction of 1% of shootings occur at schools.
Since 1980, a total of 297 people have been killed in schools. That's in 36 years.
2)
57% of mass shootings involved relatives of the shooter, and these were just as likely to happen in gun zones as in gun free zones.
3)
Of 133 mass shooting incidents studied, only 17 of them occurred in public spaces known as gun free zones, while 21 of them happened in places where open or concealed carry was allowed. The majority of them happened in residences.
4) Of 133 mass shootings studied, there is ZERO evidence that the shooters picked gun free zones over any other "zone" when they planned their shootings. So the number on that one is 0%
5) Finally, Neither the motive nor the location of a mass shooting, have anything to do with ‘gun-free zones.
Don't mind me. I'm just debunking some BS.
It's ok....what you did point out is that there hasn't been any studies done on GFZ to matter. But they
do matter! Because every mass shooting where people are unarmed, there are
victims or
potential victims. A person who is armed
does have a fighting chance. Personally, I'd rather die on the mat than throw in the towel.
anti-gun weenies depend on that illusion of "Police Protection", that does not really exist.
Thank you.
I am sure LEO are wary as hell, with good reason for wannabe LEO's.
Sure, but it's been my experience that armed citizens will render aid and I can depend on some of them for help. In rural areas of the US, where police are spread very thin, the officers out there depend on armed citizens to assist. Eastern Oregon is a prime example of that....about 2000 or so square miles with a handful of officers....sometime one or two on duty at any given time.
There is even a section in Oregon law, that allows for that.
The 'nature of 'guns'' has indeed changed in 40-50 years.
In 1960 how many AR type weapons were in civilian hands? How many AK style weapons. high cap pistols???
I was issued my first 30 round mags for my Gubmint issue M16a1 in 1976, IIRC, when did you get yours? The sidearm was the old 1911 7+1 pistol. I wonder how many people would have died if the Colorado shooter had a bolt gun and double barrel shotgun instead of the weapons he did? or how many would have died at UV?
I have addressed 'the nature of people' to other posters- howsomever the 'gun' rubbers don't want closer scrutiny or reporting of mental health issues- they fear ANY realistic regulations as their infamous 'slippery slope'... :doh
How many thousands of M1 Garrands, M1 Carbines, or Sten guns? Lots!
A 1911 can be shot, reloaded, and shot and reloaded many times, inside a minute.
True. You guys get a chance to get acclimated to high stress situations, though. Over time the psych adjusts.
And then there's the people who just act on instinct, the other end of the spectrum.
True that. That's why in all my training classes, police or civilian, I induce as much stress as I can. I've graduated hundreds of very competent civilian shooters and future Olympians.
#2 is unconstitutional since it allows too much discretion for often anti gun ass kissers of anti gun politicians. Shall issue is the only proper standard. Judges are starting to strike down #2 since it violates equal protection
That is correct and I'm contacting USA Carry to get that straightened out.
I primarily teach Oregon gun laws and they are vastly better than any Calif. gun laws.
It's a shall issue state on CCW .........and thousands carry openly. Any gun we want, no restrictions on types of CCW gun, except full auto.
