What is the republican solution to ending mass shootings? Why don’t they ever offer solutions?

[Skull Pilot]

The first requirement of common sense firearms regulation is common sense. Since none of the proposed "common sense" gun regulations would prevent another mass murder, they are far from common sense regulation.

No regulation has kept a single gun out of the hands of a gang banger or a potential mass murderer. Adding more regulations will not solve the firearm murder rate. Mainly, since those determined to do the murders don't give a tinker's damn about your regulations. The only people affected are honest, law abiding citizens.

Next, is this over fascination with numbers. One dead, no big deal, ten dead, big deal. Yet, ten dead is nothing more than one dead, ten times over. People die individually, and are mourned individually.

All common sense gun regs do is minimize the body count and make it harder for stupid people to kill so easily. There is quite a bit involved in those common sense regs but you will find each and every one of them an affront to your "Rights".

and nothing you propose will do that

Get rid of a rifle and a different rifle will be used
Get rid of that rifle and a different rifle will be used
A mass shooter will just walk in to a school with a couple handguns and a shitload of magazines or a bullpup shotgun with an 18 shot capacity etc etc etc

The only thing that's going to stop anyone from shooting up a place is to not let them in in the first place

Great plan. A fortress door for everyone. All because you fucking idiots need a semi automatic rifle to play with. Get all beered Up & shoot bottles.

Ban these rifles, limit the capacity of all magazines. Take guns from people with violent records, Advance mental screening for concealed carry.

And you have been shown through actual research that banning these rifles is stupid, and that magazine bans are stupid too, they do nothing at all.....yet you blindly hate guns and will do anything you can to ban them....

Assault weapon ban....

https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf

The decline in the use of AWs has been due primarily to a reduction in the use of assault pistols (APs), which are used in crime more commonly than assault rifles (ARs). There has not been a clear decline in the use of ARs, though assessments are complicated by the rarity of crimes with these weapons and by substitution of post-ban rifles that are very similar to the banned AR models.
--------
Should it be renewed, the ban’s effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement. AWs were rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban.

Magazine capacity...no bearing on the deaths in mass shootings...

SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

Large-Capacity Magazines and the Casualty Counts in Mass Shootings: The Plausibility of Linkages by Gary Kleck :: SSRN

Do bans on large-capacity magazines (LCMs) for semiautomatic firearms have significant potential for reducing the number of deaths and injuries in mass shootings?
The most common rationale for an effect of LCM use is that they allow mass killers to fire many rounds without reloading.
LCMs are used is less than 1/3 of 1% of mass shootings.

News accounts of 23 shootings in which more than six people were killed or wounded and LCMs were used, occurring in the U.S. in 1994-2013, were examined.
There was only one incident in which the shooter may have been stopped by bystander intervention when he tried to reload.

In all of these 23 incidents the shooter possessed either multiple guns or multiple magazines, meaning that the shooter, even if denied LCMs, could have continued firing without significant interruption by either switching loaded guns or by changing smaller loaded magazines with only a 2-4 second delay for each magazine change.
Finally, the data indicate that mass shooters maintain slow enough rates of fire such that the time needed to reload would not increase the time between shots and thus the time available for prospective victims to escape.

--------

We did not employ the oft-used definition of “mass murder” as a homicide in which four or more victims were killed, because most of these involve just four to six victims (Duwe 2007), which could therefore have involved as few as six rounds fired, a number that shooters using even ordinary revolvers are capable of firing without reloading.

LCMs obviously cannot help shooters who fire no more rounds than could be fired without LCMs, so the inclusion of “nonaffectable” cases with only four to six victims would dilute the sample, reducing the percent of sample incidents in which an LCM might have affected the number of casualties.

Further, had we studied only homicides with four or more dead victims, drawn from the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports, we would have missed cases in which huge numbers of people were shot, and huge numbers of rounds were fired, but three or fewer of the victims died.


For example, in one widely publicized shooting carried out in Los Angeles on February 28, 1997, two bank robbers shot a total of 18 people - surely a mass shooting by any reasonable standard (Table 1).

Yet, because none of the people they shot died, this incident would not qualify as a mass murder (or even murder of any kind).

Exclusion of such incidents would bias the sample against the proposition that LCM use increases the number of victims by excluding incidents with large numbers of victims. We also excluded shootings in which more than six persons were shot over the entire course of the incident but shootings occurred in multiple locations with no more than six people shot in any one of the locations, and substantial periods of time intervened between episodes of shooting. An example is the series of killings committed by Rodrick Dantzler on July 7, 2011.

Once eligible incidents were identified, we searched through news accounts for details related to whether the use of LCMs could have influenced the casualty counts.

Specifically, we searched for

(1) the number of magazines in the shooter’s immediate possession,

(2) the capacity of the largest magazine,

(3) the number of guns in the shooter’s immediate possession during the incident,

(4) the types of guns possessed,

(5) whether the shooter reloaded during the incident,

(6) the number of rounds fired,

(7) the duration of the shooting from the first shot fired to the last, and (8) whether anyone intervened to stop the shooter.

Findings How Many Mass Shootings were Committed Using LCMs?

We identified 23 total incidents in which more than six people were shot at a single time and place in the U.S. from 1994 through 2013 and that were known to involve use of any magazines with capacities over ten rounds.


Table 1 summarizes key details of the LCMinvolved mass shootings relevant to the issues addressed in this paper.

(Table 1 about here) What fraction of all mass shootings involve LCMs?

There is no comprehensive listing of all mass shootings available for the entire 1994-2013 period, but the most extensive one currently available is at the Shootingtracker.com website, which only began its coverage in 2013.

-----


-----
The offenders in LCM-involved mass shootings were also known to have reloaded during 14 of the 23 (61%) incidents with magazine holding over 10 rounds.

The shooters were known to have not reloaded in another two of these 20 incidents and it could not be determined if they reloaded in the remaining seven incidents.

Thus, even if the shooters had been denied LCMs, we know that most of them definitely would have been able to reload smaller detachable magazines without interference from bystanders since they in fact did change magazines.

The fact that this percentage is less than 100% should not, however, be interpreted to mean that the shooters were unable to reload in the other nine incidents.

It is possible that the shooters could also have reloaded in many of these nine shootings, but chose not to do so, or did not need to do so in order to fire all the rounds they wanted to fire. This is consistent with the fact that there has been at most only one mass shootings in twenty years in which reloading a semiautomatic firearm might have been blocked by bystanders intervening and thereby stopping the shooter from doing all the shooting he wanted to do. All we know is that in two incidents the shooter did not reload, and news accounts of seven other incidents did not mention whether the offender reloaded.

----

For example, a story in the Hartford Courant about the Sandy Hook elementary school killings in 2012 was headlined “Shooter Paused, and Six Escaped,” the text asserting that as many as six children may have survived because the shooter paused to reload (December 23, 2012). ''

The author of the story, however, went on to concede that this was just a speculation by an unnamed source, and that it was also possible that some children simply escaped when the killer was shooting other children.

There was no reliable evidence that the pauses were due to the shooter reloading, rather than his guns jamming or the shooter simply choosing to pause his shooting while his gun was still loaded.

The plausibility of the “victims escape” rationale depends on the average rates of fire that shooters in mass shootings typically maintain.

If they fire very fast, the 2-4 seconds it takes to change box-type detachable magazines could produce a slowing of the rate of fire that the shooters otherwise would have maintained without the magazine changes, increasing the average time between rounds fired and potentially allowing more victims to escape during the betweenshot intervals.

On the other hand, if mass shooters fire their guns with the average interval between shots lasting more than 2-4 seconds, the pauses due to additional magazine changes would be no longer than the pauses the shooter typically took between shots even when not reloading.

In that case, there would be no more opportunity for potential victims to escape than there would have been without the additional magazine changes

-----


SAGE Journals: Your gateway to world-class journal research

In sum, in nearly all LCM-involved mass shootings, the time it takes to reload a detachable magazine is no greater than the average time between shots that the shooter takes anyway when not reloading.

Consequently, there is no affirmative evidence that reloading detachable magazines slows mass shooters’ rates of fire, and thus no affirmative evidence that the number of victims who could escape the killers due to additional pauses in the shooting is increased by the shooter’s need to change magazines.

IF LARGER MAGAZINES GIVE NO ADVANTAGE WHY THE FUCK DO YOU NEED THEM.

If large mags give no advantage WHY THE FUCK DO YOU WANT TO BAN THEM

 

[beagle9]

So you agree that the AR-15 is far from being any sort of Assault Weapon. THANK YOU!

Follow along kiddies.

We're told that it's important to have an AR-15 because it is a good gun for shooting squirrels...

We're also told that it's not a good self defense weapon (there are many much better)...

And that the main reason for having one is a "defense against the government"...but that it's not a military grade weapon.

Of course defending oneself against an actual military with a weapon that is admittedly not military grade sounds silly but then the entire gun hugger argument is pretty fucking silly so....

Oh and no...the gun huggers have no solution to mass shootings or gun violence because ...they just don't see it as a problem

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

The only thing we can do is actually a social problem. Yah, I know, I type social and you transpose "Socialist" over it. But social change has nothing to do with a bunch of commies. Here are some steps that have helped here, at the permission of the Voters

1. Put in detectors right on the front door of the School, or any public gathering place. This stops even handguns from being brought in. Yah, I know, there are still stupid kids that try and bring in their Daddys handgun out of kicks but the get bagged very quickly and the gun gets confiscated by the Police to never be returned. The Onus is on the Parents in this case. And put well trained Armed Security on that Gate. It prevents or slows down firearms being brought into the public areas where you have no choice but to have as a Gun Free Zone.

2. Educate the general public. In Texas, you may see people walking around on a hot sunny dry day wearing Rain Coats or Dusters. Here, if you see that, the Cops are called if you are within 1000 feet of a School. The Cops respond. 3 times the cops have been called. 2 of the times, it was a stupid fashion statement that I doubt if that student will ever do again. The 3rd time, under that Rain Coat was an AR and 4 30 round mags. The School didn't call it in. A concerned Citizen called it in and the Cops took all 3 as serious as a heart attack.

You don't need every Teacher Armed. Right after the States Board of Education approved that the Teachers can be armed, the Teachers Association along with the PTAs turned it down. There have been accidental discharged by teachers in schools that have done this. And if you same one life then you should do it. There are other methods.

There are other methods that can be used at the same time. If you want to see them, google Colorado Firearms Regulations. When you total it all together, you end up with a much safter place.

No school that I'm aware of has ever created policy of mandatory armed teachers. It's a leftist lie if that's what's out there. Armed faculty is an option that only those interested may participate. Even then, most of the time the requirements are a lot of training beyond just having a CCW permit.

No, not mandatory. But enough have done Voluntary to show that it's not a good idea. There are better methods and most schools around here have adopted those methods. If you want to mass shoot and there are not student so shoot and all the doors into a large area are made of heavy metal and electronically locked remotely then you really can't have much of a mass shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, SWAT is coming in the front door. Or it might be a bunch of pissed off cops with guns that are pissed off that you interrupted their Donut Break.

A better idea is to bring back freedom to the educational system, where as it is a privilege to go to school, and in this thought it will only be mandatory through the 6th grade to force students to participate any longer after that.

Summary - After 6th grade school becomes volunteer for the student to attend.

Ok, for example you have 7 years (to include kendergarten), to teach the kids who might leave after the 6th grade voluntarily, to then have enough knowledge to survive in the markets.....

Summary - 7 years to educate them enough to survive in the manual labor markets of society after such a move.

If a former student decides to continue their education on their own (outside of the public system), then the government could arrange to have all such students tested in the facility of choice, where as the former students would then show up if wanted to advance to the grade level excepted by the government standard, and this upon the testing results reviewed outside of the student physically being present or required to be in the classroom any longer.

All these uneducated Mexican's excetra, excetra who have been illegals that were working in many labor markets in our society, would no longer be required to fill those jobs. The Americans will fill those jobs upon their own free will. Their choices in life will be honored, and the door to further education will remain open to them throughout their lives.

Most children begin to be corrupted in the public system in middle school, and if this volunteer system could fix that for them, then good deal. Otherwise the kids that want to push on to make their schools great, safe, and secure, then who will stand in their way ??? If young men or young ladies want to opt out until a later date in life, then who will stand in their way ????

Guns will become a non-issue in our society again, if we would just put freedom back into everything, and quit forcing people to do (in some cases as is orchastrated by these idiots whom have horrible Agenda's), and that are forcing the young folks to do against their will's ridiculous things (be it this or be it that), in this society such crazy things... Then at this point we just might get a handle on this thing again.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Lol
ARs are just sporting rifles... Get your facts straight

What sport is that?

Competitive shooting, both single rifle, and 3 gun competition.....and, of course, self defense....

You need a semi automatic for this?

Ray said a handgun was just as good as a semiautomatic rifle for self defence.

I said a semi-automatic handgun is just as good because both guns fire the same amount of rounds in the same amount of time.

There you go. You don't need that AR-15.

Let me guess all those guns you allegedly own are single shot bolt action rifles and single shot pistols because you can shoot and no one who owns a semiauto can shoot because they own semiautios

do I have that right?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Republicans see mass shootings as a form of population control, I guess.

That is a really stupid post......

Number killed in 2016.... 71, number killed in 2017....117

Number of people killed falling off ladders? 300.

Number of people killed in car accidents...38,000.

Conservatives and supporters of the 2nd Amendment know how to stop mass shootings and how to lower the gun crime rate....but because people like you are only interested in banning guns, not stopping gun crime, you won't listen to those solutions.

Ladders have a purpose.

Cars have a purpose

You toting a gun to make you feel like a tough guy is not a purpose.,

Self-defense is not a purpose?

You don't need an assault type rifle for self defense.

And who are you to tell anyone else what they need or don't need?

Oh yeah you're fucking nobody

 

[Skull Pilot]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

Oh, they do. Their solution is to arm everyone, because apparently this will somehow work. Yeah, more guns will mean more people die, which will then destroy humans in the US and when they're all dead, there won't be any gun crime.

No, just arm the good people as so they can then protect themselves from the bad people who are being created faster than a person can blink these days.

Now since you don't have any honest solutions on how to curb or stop so many bad idiots from getting on board the good people train, then just sit back and watch as the nation attempts to drain the swamp that has been created over time now.

And who are the "good people"?

Such a ridiculous concept.

You asking such a ridiculous question is the ridiculous concept that's going on with the left these days.

Why is asking who the "good people" are a ridiculous question?

Remember that each and every criminal was a "good person" before they become a criminal. That a lot of these mass killings were carried out by "good people".

That includes YOU so why don't we put you on a sex offenders list because after all it's just a matter of time before you rape a woman

 

[Skull Pilot]

Partly because there is no real difference between an assault weapon and any other magazine fed semi-auto weapon...and no real need for either of those very dangerous weapons

That statement is just foolish.

Please give us your definition of an assault weapon. Not your fantasies, what is the definition of an assault weapon. What is the difference between that and, say, an AR-15?

You will agree that a M-16 is an assault rifle, right? And that definition has nothing to do with the A in the AR. It's used to assault in a war condition and it's pretty damned good at it. It's normally used in it's single shot setting because it just wastes ammo otherwise. So now you have a single shot M-16. Can you tell me the difference between an AR-15 and a M-16/M-4? And don't give me that crap about the AR must being a sporting rifle. You may be right but the sport animal it was designed to assault is human. All other uses are secondary.

So you agree that the AR-15 is far from being any sort of Assault Weapon. THANK YOU!

Follow along kiddies.

We're told that it's important to have an AR-15 because it is a good gun for shooting squirrels...

We're also told that it's not a good self defense weapon (there are many much better)...

And that the main reason for having one is a "defense against the government"...but that it's not a military grade weapon.

Of course defending oneself against an actual military with a weapon that is admittedly not military grade sounds silly but then the entire gun hugger argument is pretty fucking silly so....

Oh and no...the gun huggers have no solution to mass shootings or gun violence because ...they just don't see it as a problem

The best self defense weapon is the one you are comfortable with and can shoot accurately or is at hand when you need it.

For some it's a shotgun
For some it's a handgun
For some it's a rifle

It's not your place to tell anyone else what they need or don't need

In my case I prefer an actual military grade weapon and that's my Remington 870

If a seimauto .223 makes you shit your pants then this 12 gauge semiauto must really scare you

 

[Skull Pilot]

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

What we have here is too fringe groups yelling at each other while they are so LOUD that the rest of us have trouble discussing anything. You people aren't necessarily right, you are just LOUD.

Well......loud is how you are heard. The left is loud via MSM. We don't have that, so we need to yell louder. All we really have is AM radio and Fox news. The MSM, Hollywood, education, the internet is all dominated by the left.

But because we yell louder doesn't mean we are wrong either.

In an 8 hour period in there, I saw just a couple or three posts by a few people. But there were 64 posts by the same 4 people trying to yell down everyone else though insulting posts. Your bunch tries to bury everyone elses inputs. It's hard to weed through all the Insulting Posts to get to the meat of the subject. Once your posts goes into the loud venue, people just stop reading it and your real message is lost whether its right or not.

So what you are saying is the left does not "yell?"

What you're really upset about is not the number of posts, but that you are outnumbered. The majority on this subject are pro-gun. Therefore for every one post a leftist makes, it's battled with four opposition posts regardless of who posts them. Insults? That comes from both sides if you've been here long enough to realize it. I object to insulting posts unless one is reacting to a personal attack. I do that myself, but I never draw first blood.

I like civil discussions when it comes to politics. Insults are teen chat room exchanges. I avoid participating with flamers if possible. Speaking for myself only of course, I conduct myself here as if we were discussing issues at a bar or club in person. I don't believe in hiding behind a keyboard and tossing insults at people that may be 500 miles or more from where I live.

I am so difficult to handle there ain't enough of you to go around. So you just get LOUD. I am not loud but I do have a message without the petty insults to try and make myself look smarter, better looking, etc.. I have noticed that you are easier to read than most. I just don't particularly agree with everything you have to say. But, hey, that's what makes life interesting.

Yes, the Left Yells but I don't. But I find, in here, the major source of "Yelling" is from the fringe group of guncrazies. Rather than discuss and actually coming up with a solution (and yes, any solution I see I will pass on to other voters) they start in insulting and degrading the other person. I can't speak for MSN since I don't listen to that. I can't speak for Talk Radio since I don't listen to that. And I can't speak for
Pauxsnews since I don't watch nor listen to that. I speak for myself and the community for which I live in who have made changes to confront all the evils that are being shouted out to cover up an chance of coming to a solution. Newsflash: There is always a solution for most problems if we stop yelling and insulting each other long enough.

Right now, the Right needs to clean it's act in here and out of here. Do it before you lose more than you can afford to lose. And put a cork on the NRA meddling in local elections. One of the reasons so many Dems were elected into the house is that the NRA put money against the other side and the voters said enough. And the people voted in are Moderates. That should scare the hell out of everyone that is in the fringe on both sides.

You're a feeble old man who thinks a 15 round mag of 9 mm rounds is too heavy to carry

 

[Skull Pilot]

Okay, so any level gun control is bad which is of course retarded on its own, but the right can’t even think of any alternatives to curbing gun violence. Saying “no” to everything accomplishes absolutely nothing. It’s astounding we are still at square one.

Oh, they do. Their solution is to arm everyone, because apparently this will somehow work. Yeah, more guns will mean more people die, which will then destroy humans in the US and when they're all dead, there won't be any gun crime.

Funny I never said anything about arming everyone
I do know disarming everyone (who would obey the law) won't lower the murder rate

'Because I disagree with most of what you have to say (your fruitcake logic) does that mean that I want to disarm everyone? No, just the crazy people and it appears you may fit that definition.

It's the classic camel's nose under the tent

So you ban the Ar 15 then the next school shooter uses a Mini 14 then you want to ban that gun so the Mini 14 gets banned and the next school shooter uses a different semiauto then you want to ban that because it was used in a school shooting etc etc etc

Wrong.

But your post does fail as a classic slippery slope fallacy.

In fact, in jurisdictions where AR platform rifles and carbines have been restricted, no efforts have been made to restrict compliant platforms such as the Mini 14 or SU 16.

YET

The focus right now is solely on the AR but when you idiots finally wise up and realize the AR is no different from any other semiauto then the push will be to ban those as well

 

[Skull Pilot]

77777

Oh, they do. Their solution is to arm everyone, because apparently this will somehow work. Yeah, more guns will mean more people die, which will then destroy humans in the US and when they're all dead, there won't be any gun crime.

Funny I never said anything about arming everyone
I do know disarming everyone (who would obey the law) won't lower the murder rate

'Because I disagree with most of what you have to say (your fruitcake logic) does that mean that I want to disarm everyone? No, just the crazy people and it appears you may fit that definition.

It's the classic camel's nose under the tent

So you ban the Ar 15 then the next school shooter uses a Mini 14 then you want to ban that gun so the Mini 14 gets banned and the next school shooter uses a different semiauto then you want to ban that because it was used in a school shooting etc etc etc

Wrong.

But your post does fail as a classic slippery slope fallacy.

In fact, in jurisdictions where AR platform rifles and carbines have been restricted, no efforts have been made to restrict compliant platforms such as the Mini 14 or SU 16.

A community can ban any firearms but it MUST spell out the weapons. The ones that have failed all have been worded where it might apply to many other firearms as well. The ones that have succeeded and back by Federal Courts specifically spell out the exact weapon. The Phrase, "AR and it's various Clones" rather than describing the weapons is the way it's done now. And it sticks.

State governments are not allowed to stomp on the civil rights of citizens which is why the SCOTUS can deem a state law unconstitutional

 

[Cosmos]

Assisted suicide. Give the crazies an easy way out.

 

[beagle9]

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

The only thing we can do is actually a social problem. Yah, I know, I type social and you transpose "Socialist" over it. But social change has nothing to do with a bunch of commies. Here are some steps that have helped here, at the permission of the Voters

1. Put in detectors right on the front door of the School, or any public gathering place. This stops even handguns from being brought in. Yah, I know, there are still stupid kids that try and bring in their Daddys handgun out of kicks but the get bagged very quickly and the gun gets confiscated by the Police to never be returned. The Onus is on the Parents in this case. And put well trained Armed Security on that Gate. It prevents or slows down firearms being brought into the public areas where you have no choice but to have as a Gun Free Zone.

2. Educate the general public. In Texas, you may see people walking around on a hot sunny dry day wearing Rain Coats or Dusters. Here, if you see that, the Cops are called if you are within 1000 feet of a School. The Cops respond. 3 times the cops have been called. 2 of the times, it was a stupid fashion statement that I doubt if that student will ever do again. The 3rd time, under that Rain Coat was an AR and 4 30 round mags. The School didn't call it in. A concerned Citizen called it in and the Cops took all 3 as serious as a heart attack.

You don't need every Teacher Armed. Right after the States Board of Education approved that the Teachers can be armed, the Teachers Association along with the PTAs turned it down. There have been accidental discharged by teachers in schools that have done this. And if you same one life then you should do it. There are other methods.

There are other methods that can be used at the same time. If you want to see them, google Colorado Firearms Regulations. When you total it all together, you end up with a much safter place.

No school that I'm aware of has ever created policy of mandatory armed teachers. It's a leftist lie if that's what's out there. Armed faculty is an option that only those interested may participate. Even then, most of the time the requirements are a lot of training beyond just having a CCW permit.

No, not mandatory. But enough have done Voluntary to show that it's not a good idea. There are better methods and most schools around here have adopted those methods. If you want to mass shoot and there are not student so shoot and all the doors into a large area are made of heavy metal and electronically locked remotely then you really can't have much of a mass shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, SWAT is coming in the front door. Or it might be a bunch of pissed off cops with guns that are pissed off that you interrupted their Donut Break.

The beauty of CCW licenses is that a possible attacker does not know who is armed and who is not.

For instance, schools have been attacked in the past even though they had armed security. However armed security is obvious. They have uniforms, they of course are open carry, they usually position themselves in one place, and their daily routines can be tracked by a possible attacker.

When a kook makes a plan to attack other people, they like to know where they stand. As I just mentioned, a student could monitor the activities of an armed guard. They can't do that with an armed teacher because they don't know who is armed or not. Creating this uncertainty is what can throw them off or even make them abort their mission.

Or you can have only one way in where you have a detector and at least one highly trained and armed Security Guard where he can instigate a school lockdown with the touch of a button. Then if you get past that, any Teacher can instigate that lockdown with a touch of a button that is only available to Teachers and Faculty. You have to have a Mass to do a Mass Shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, the cops are notified and are coming enmass. The potential shooter just disturbed the cops Donut Break and they are going to be pissed off to hell and back. The Kook can plan till the cows come home but chances are, he will give up, go home or do something really stupid and still try to do the Mass Shooting. Talk about frustrating.

The Teachers aren't paid enough as it is. Yet you want them to go get trained to the point they can enter a battle field and function? And yes, one person with an AR and 4 30 round mags is a battlefield all by themselves to a SillyVillian. Unless you get continuous stress training, chances are,you are either going to start blasting away which becomes a real problem in a target rich situation but most likely you are going to freeze too long (hesitation is the normal human reaction) and that gun you have becomes worthless fast. Isn't it better to just remove the Mass from the Mass Shooting if you have the choice? The Teachers are much better at removing the masses than getting into a firefight.

So you want the schools to have the same technology that maximum security prisons have, and that they also have in appearance of ?? Well the schools already look like prisons, so just upgrade the inside to prison technology, and it's done. The children will reject the new prison setting just like prisoners reject their prisons.

 

[MrShangles]

Stop having gun free zones!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[beagle9]

The gun manufacturers solutions to mass shootings?

MORE, FREAKING GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yep, and then after we've saved ourselves in a crime situation that 99.9 % of the time the lefties created for us, we will just be sitting back and waiting for the law to arrive while they are still out there making wrong turns after they leave the donut shop trying to get here to us.

What happened to the perp you ask ???

Well let's just say that the perp needs an ambulance, and that was the second call after the call to the police went out.

Except that's not how it works in reality. In LaLa Land, every dude with a gun is a good guy and always does good. In reality, not everyone is a good guy with a gun and sometimes petty arguments are settle with the gun. I don't know where you got your 99.9 figure from but I can bet it would be quite painful if you place it back in the area from whence it came.

Denial of reality is a leftist strong point. This has been learned over the years now, so you're denial is yet another qualifier.

 

[beagle9]

which is yet another idealist view, especially if one can not realize that this is spawning a police state

That idealist failed former President Barack Hussein Obama wanted a military, under his control, which would have been as large as our armed forces and as well funded. Another one of his lies.

That guy was up to no good, and after everything we have learned since, it has been proven so. Now him and his wife are following Bill and Hilly's path, and are exploiting their positions in order to raise millions off of the poor souls they stiffed during their run in with power.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

The gun manufacturers solutions to mass shootings?

MORE, FREAKING GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yep, and then after we've saved ourselves in a crime situation that 99.9 % of the time the lefties created for us, we will just be sitting back and waiting for the law to arrive while they are still out there making wrong turns after they leave the donut shop trying to get here to us.

What happened to the perp you ask ???

Well let's just say that the perp needs an ambulance, and that was the second call after the call to the police went out.

Except that's not how it works in reality. In LaLa Land, every dude with a gun is a good guy and always does good. In reality, not everyone is a good guy with a gun and sometimes petty arguments are settle with the gun. I don't know where you got your 99.9 figure from but I can bet it would be quite painful if you place it back in the area from whence it came.

But wouldn't you agree that most Americans (regardless of the percentage you think) use their guns for recreational or good purposes?

It's like the internet we are communicating on now. It's very beneficial for most of us. But some will use this great tool for nefarious ways. Some will be looking up how to make a bomb, some will be downloading child porn, some will use it to bully or get even with somebody on social media, some will use it to scam people out of money or steal their credit cards.

This wonderful internet cost lives as well, but we don't need government regulation to try and fix the problems. Like guns, it won't work. Like guns, you would be taking away liberty from hundreds of millions of good folks. Like guns, you would be giving them limitations as to where they are allowed to go. Like guns, you would be taking the enjoyment of using this great technology.

 

[beagle9]

You can't figure it out?

To yor credit, and you'll excuse me for forgeting just where the thread went , the citizen militia ideal became a moot subject.

there just isn't going to be one in this country, no matter how hard anyone hammers the 2nd

Well let's just say that the perp needs an ambulance, and that was the second call after the call to the police went out.

which is yet another idealist view, especially if one can not realize that this is spawning a police state

that's the $$$ of it all

~S~

Better start getting yourself a good dose of the series "LIVE PD", because that is the reality on the ground for most. In many situation's the police were just lucky to get there in time to stop someone from getting hurt or killed, but most times they arrive in the aftermath of burgurlaries, domestic violence, tresspassers, and crazed lunatics gone mad. The citizens are the first responders and not the police, emt's or fire fighters.

The citizens cell phone is but one part of their war on crime as a first responder, and after that (if things escalate out of control quickly), their gun becomes their next instrument to reach for in their war on crime.

 

[beagle9]

The gun manufacturers solutions to mass shootings?

MORE, FREAKING GUNS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yep, and then after we've saved ourselves in a crime situation that 99.9 % of the time the lefties created for us, we will just be sitting back and waiting for the law to arrive while they are still out there making wrong turns after they leave the donut shop trying to get here to us.

What happened to the perp you ask ???

Well let's just say that the perp needs an ambulance, and that was the second call after the call to the police went out.

Except that's not how it works in reality. In LaLa Land, every dude with a gun is a good guy and always does good. In reality, not everyone is a good guy with a gun and sometimes petty arguments are settle with the gun. I don't know where you got your 99.9 figure from but I can bet it would be quite painful if you place it back in the area from whence it came.

But wouldn't you agree that most Americans (regardless of the percentage you think) use their guns for recreational or good purposes?

It's like the internet we are communicating on now. It's very beneficial for most of us. But some will use this great tool for nefarious ways. Some will be looking up how to make a bomb, some will be downloading child porn, some will use it to bully or get even with somebody on social media, some will use it to scam people out of money or steal their credit cards.

This wonderful internet cost lives as well, but we don't need government regulation to try and fix the problems. Like guns, it won't work. Like guns, you would be taking away liberty from hundreds of millions of good folks. Like guns, you would be giving them limitations as to where they are allowed to go. Like guns, you would be taking the enjoyment of using this great technology.

Good points, and you hit them where it hurts when challenging their wants and needs in their technologies. They are quick to ignore those problems, because they know that those problems are mostly hidden from the naked eye of society, otherwise they can control it (so they are ok with it) even if they know it's bad also.

 

[pismoe]

You can't figure it out?

To yor credit, and you'll excuse me for forgeting just where the thread went , the citizen militia ideal became a moot subject.

there just isn't going to be one in this country, no matter how hard anyone hammers the 2nd

Well let's just say that the perp needs an ambulance, and that was the second call after the call to the police went out.

which is yet another idealist view, especially if one can not realize that this is spawning a police state

that's the $$$ of it all

~S~

Better start getting yourself a good dose of the series "LIVE PD", because that is the reality on the ground for most. In many situation's the police were just lucky to get there in time to stop someone from getting hurt or killed, but most times they arrive in the aftermath of burgurlaries, domestic violence, tresspassers, and crazed lunatics gone mad. The citizens are the first responders and not the police, emt's or fire fighters.

---------------------------------------------------- now thats a good post , very good reasoning and its true . American People are the 'first responders' and should be well equipped for taking care of themselves . Many times the cops just show up with the 'bodybag' and chalk to draw a chalk outline around the dead bodies Beagle .

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

What we have here is too fringe groups yelling at each other while they are so LOUD that the rest of us have trouble discussing anything. You people aren't necessarily right, you are just LOUD.

Well......loud is how you are heard. The left is loud via MSM. We don't have that, so we need to yell louder. All we really have is AM radio and Fox news. The MSM, Hollywood, education, the internet is all dominated by the left.

But because we yell louder doesn't mean we are wrong either.

In an 8 hour period in there, I saw just a couple or three posts by a few people. But there were 64 posts by the same 4 people trying to yell down everyone else though insulting posts. Your bunch tries to bury everyone elses inputs. It's hard to weed through all the Insulting Posts to get to the meat of the subject. Once your posts goes into the loud venue, people just stop reading it and your real message is lost whether its right or not.

So what you are saying is the left does not "yell?"

What you're really upset about is not the number of posts, but that you are outnumbered. The majority on this subject are pro-gun. Therefore for every one post a leftist makes, it's battled with four opposition posts regardless of who posts them. Insults? That comes from both sides if you've been here long enough to realize it. I object to insulting posts unless one is reacting to a personal attack. I do that myself, but I never draw first blood.

I like civil discussions when it comes to politics. Insults are teen chat room exchanges. I avoid participating with flamers if possible. Speaking for myself only of course, I conduct myself here as if we were discussing issues at a bar or club in person. I don't believe in hiding behind a keyboard and tossing insults at people that may be 500 miles or more from where I live.

I am so difficult to handle there ain't enough of you to go around. So you just get LOUD. I am not loud but I do have a message without the petty insults to try and make myself look smarter, better looking, etc.. I have noticed that you are easier to read than most. I just don't particularly agree with everything you have to say. But, hey, that's what makes life interesting.

Yes, the Left Yells but I don't. But I find, in here, the major source of "Yelling" is from the fringe group of guncrazies. Rather than discuss and actually coming up with a solution (and yes, any solution I see I will pass on to other voters) they start in insulting and degrading the other person. I can't speak for MSN since I don't listen to that. I can't speak for Talk Radio since I don't listen to that. And I can't speak for
Pauxsnews since I don't watch nor listen to that. I speak for myself and the community for which I live in who have made changes to confront all the evils that are being shouted out to cover up an chance of coming to a solution. Newsflash: There is always a solution for most problems if we stop yelling and insulting each other long enough.

Right now, the Right needs to clean it's act in here and out of here. Do it before you lose more than you can afford to lose. And put a cork on the NRA meddling in local elections. One of the reasons so many Dems were elected into the house is that the NRA put money against the other side and the voters said enough. And the people voted in are Moderates. That should scare the hell out of everyone that is in the fringe on both sides.

Very few people base their vote on gun issues unless the left is once again making threats.

You want NRA money out of our politics? Fine with me, I'll work on that and you work on getting that union money out of the hands of Democrats; that trial lawyer money so our manufacturers can't get sued because somebody took their new toaster in the shower with them; that Sierra Club money that leads to very costly and job killing regulations.

This is not a one-way street you know.........

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's your imagination. Of course it's a problem. The question is if it can be solved. Our stance is that disarming the public and even the removal of AR's will not solve anything. It would only make people like yourself feel better.

But even if you could accomplish either of those things, and the next mass shooting takes place, you will want to advance to the next step, and the next, and the next.

That is where we really stand.

The only thing we can do is actually a social problem. Yah, I know, I type social and you transpose "Socialist" over it. But social change has nothing to do with a bunch of commies. Here are some steps that have helped here, at the permission of the Voters

1. Put in detectors right on the front door of the School, or any public gathering place. This stops even handguns from being brought in. Yah, I know, there are still stupid kids that try and bring in their Daddys handgun out of kicks but the get bagged very quickly and the gun gets confiscated by the Police to never be returned. The Onus is on the Parents in this case. And put well trained Armed Security on that Gate. It prevents or slows down firearms being brought into the public areas where you have no choice but to have as a Gun Free Zone.

2. Educate the general public. In Texas, you may see people walking around on a hot sunny dry day wearing Rain Coats or Dusters. Here, if you see that, the Cops are called if you are within 1000 feet of a School. The Cops respond. 3 times the cops have been called. 2 of the times, it was a stupid fashion statement that I doubt if that student will ever do again. The 3rd time, under that Rain Coat was an AR and 4 30 round mags. The School didn't call it in. A concerned Citizen called it in and the Cops took all 3 as serious as a heart attack.

You don't need every Teacher Armed. Right after the States Board of Education approved that the Teachers can be armed, the Teachers Association along with the PTAs turned it down. There have been accidental discharged by teachers in schools that have done this. And if you same one life then you should do it. There are other methods.

There are other methods that can be used at the same time. If you want to see them, google Colorado Firearms Regulations. When you total it all together, you end up with a much safter place.

No school that I'm aware of has ever created policy of mandatory armed teachers. It's a leftist lie if that's what's out there. Armed faculty is an option that only those interested may participate. Even then, most of the time the requirements are a lot of training beyond just having a CCW permit.

No, not mandatory. But enough have done Voluntary to show that it's not a good idea. There are better methods and most schools around here have adopted those methods. If you want to mass shoot and there are not student so shoot and all the doors into a large area are made of heavy metal and electronically locked remotely then you really can't have much of a mass shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, SWAT is coming in the front door. Or it might be a bunch of pissed off cops with guns that are pissed off that you interrupted their Donut Break.

The beauty of CCW licenses is that a possible attacker does not know who is armed and who is not.

For instance, schools have been attacked in the past even though they had armed security. However armed security is obvious. They have uniforms, they of course are open carry, they usually position themselves in one place, and their daily routines can be tracked by a possible attacker.

When a kook makes a plan to attack other people, they like to know where they stand. As I just mentioned, a student could monitor the activities of an armed guard. They can't do that with an armed teacher because they don't know who is armed or not. Creating this uncertainty is what can throw them off or even make them abort their mission.

Or you can have only one way in where you have a detector and at least one highly trained and armed Security Guard where he can instigate a school lockdown with the touch of a button. Then if you get past that, any Teacher can instigate that lockdown with a touch of a button that is only available to Teachers and Faculty. You have to have a Mass to do a Mass Shooting. While you are running around trying to find a way in, the cops are notified and are coming enmass. The potential shooter just disturbed the cops Donut Break and they are going to be pissed off to hell and back. The Kook can plan till the cows come home but chances are, he will give up, go home or do something really stupid and still try to do the Mass Shooting. Talk about frustrating.

The Teachers aren't paid enough as it is. Yet you want them to go get trained to the point they can enter a battle field and function? And yes, one person with an AR and 4 30 round mags is a battlefield all by themselves to a SillyVillian. Unless you get continuous stress training, chances are,you are either going to start blasting away which becomes a real problem in a target rich situation but most likely you are going to freeze too long (hesitation is the normal human reaction) and that gun you have becomes worthless fast. Isn't it better to just remove the Mass from the Mass Shooting if you have the choice? The Teachers are much better at removing the masses than getting into a firefight.

So that's the solution? Our teachers are forbidden from using the color red to mark a failing grade because the color red is threatening. Our teachers cannot paddle a child or even lay a hand on them in any way because it's a display of violence. Some of our schools don't even keep score during sports activity because they are afraid the children on the losing team will develop a complex.

And you want to make our schools like bank safes and prisons, and that's a solution everybody will be happy with?