what type of gun nut are you?

[byco42]

Someone who see the lunacy in people making laws and banning things in reaction to an incident that wouldn't have been prevented even with said laws in place. A man with a shotgun is just as dangerous to a crowd of unarmed people as a man with an AR.

Can a man with a shotgun pan and shoot a wide field of fire simultaneously? Can a man with a 45 pistol?

 

[redandguilty]

Ha, ha...see my post #109...I beat you to it by a nose!

Yeah you did. "Full troll mode" I even like your description of it better.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Obviously it takes more than 1 bullet to kill 26 people and not I didn't time his reloading skills, but that can be learned. From the sound of it - he'd been trained on firearms by his mom his entire life. I know this, any normal person can reload a single shot shotgun in about 2 seconds if they have a bag of shotgun shells at the ready. Any average person can reload a revolver in probably the same amount of time with a speed clip: http://hellinahandbasket.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/revolver_reloading.jpg

I do know 1 thing, there were 6 adults between him and the kids and most revolvers shoot 6 times. If he didn't have an AR I assume his, or anyone's, plan would be to take out the adults first. As I said, you take away the AR nothing changes but the way it's carried out. The results are the same.

Even though I know you're just being a clown now, I'll respond anyway -

You were there? You saw the events as they transpired?

You have no idea what was between him and the kids; and you surely don't know what might have been between him and the kids had the dynamics changed.

What you know is he killed six adults; and that's the only thing you know.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

You've never heard of Charles Whitman? The loon-e-toons in Wixom who hid in overpasses? The D.C. Sniper?

Yeah, and guess what - of the guns Whitman used...maybe 1 of them would have been banned under the assault weapons ban. Two of his primary weapons were hunting rifles, 1 was a shotgun and the other was an M1 carbine (among some revolvers and other things).

The point being, that banning AR's wouldn't have prevented any of the attacks; even if they were originally carried out with one. A hunting rifle in any of the situations was either used or could have been used to carry out the same events.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Can a man with a shotgun pan and shoot a wide field of fire simultaneously? Can a man with a 45 pistol?

I'm not sure how you "fire simultaneously". Certainly there are shotguns that are semi-auto and could be fired just as fast as you can pull the trigger....and because each shot in a shotgun can have anywhere between 3-300 bb's in it, those could be just as, if not more, devastating to a crowd than spraying an AR into it. More so because aiming really doesn't matter.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

Even though I know you're just being a clown now, I'll respond anyway -

You were there? You saw the events as they transpired?

You have no idea what was between him and the kids; and you surely don't know what might have been between him and the kids had the dynamics changed.

What you know is he killed six adults; and that's the only thing you know.

Based on what is being reported, there were a couple of people who tried to stop him in the hallway (one of which was the principal) and the others adults killed were teachers in the room. So we actually know quite accurately how things transpired.

 

[rumseyhouse77]

It will take a comprehensive approach to confront this problem. Improved security, improved psychological interventions, improved gun owner training, and improved control measures.

An armed security guard is in the bank where I keep my money, and and two armed security guards wearing bullet proof vests accompany the bank employee that comes and services the money machine at the supermarket where I shop. Protecting school kids has to be part of the explicit mission of police departments. The goal being to put an armed and trained police officer (with a vest) in every public school, maybe two depending on the size of the school. Not a security guard (whose training can vary greatly) or arming teachers or administrators (just an insane idea!), but a police officer trained in active shooter situations. How much would this cost I don't know. Zuckerberg just made a $500 million dollar donation. How much money have Gates and Buffet donated recently? Perhaps these guys and others could be called upon to develop a program to provide funding to support police officers in schools. This will not stop every possible attack, but if an armed police officer trained in handling the situation had been a part of the security plan and in the school at Sandy Hook, it may have greatly reduced the number of deaths.

Better psychological interventions also need to be developed focused on identifying individuals with the potential to do these sorts of acts and intervening. Identifying the warning signs in someone that is struggling with mental illness, such as buying camoflage or military style clothing, seeking to buy guns, etc. and taking steps to diffuse the situation. It seems to me that in every one of these attacks others knew something was wrong with the individual but did little or nothing. People need to sound the alarms when they think something is wrong that could lead to this sort of an attack. TAKE ACTION! And if you own guns and you have a relative stuggling with mental illness, the message has to be clearly made that YOU need to secure your guns. Get them out of the house and to a secure location that your relative or friend doesn't have access to. Especially if you have an assualt type weapon. If you fail to do this, and your relative uses your weapons in an attack, then you should be held responsible and face stiff penalties, including prison time.

And better gun control laws are needed to severly limit who can buy assualt type weapons, where these weapons can be kept (locked up at a licensed gun range?), etc. And banning large capacity clips.

Some of these things are easy, some are hard. But we have to address this problem. All of these approaches have to be taken to fully address this problem. Leaving any of these approaches out will be a failure.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

I'm beginning to suspect that MB09 has just gone into "full troll mode" to see what responses he can get to outrageous statements.

Not thar he's ever done anything like that before, or anything.

I think I'm done responding to his foolishness.

I'm not trolling at all, I truly think that some of you have no idea what you're talking about and haven't had any exposure, or little exposure, to firearms. The idea that banning assault rifles will do anything is nonsense to me and IMO is a major reason we're in this mess to begin with. People are unwilling to come up with ideas to help the problem because it's so easy to point at an assault rifle, call it evil and ban it. There's 0 evidence to suggest this solves the problem.

 

[byco42]

The irony here is that I agree with M&B that an AR ban will be largely ineffective in stemming the problem of mass shootings. But he is missing that very point of the discussion: that an AR ban will certainly be effective in minimizing mass shootings with an AR!

 

[tinselwolverine]

Based on what is being reported, there were a couple of people who tried to stop him in the hallway (one of which was the principal) and the others adults killed were teachers in the room. So we actually know quite accurately how things transpired.

And you claim to know unequivocally that he would have had just as easy a time to kill the teachers in the room who may have attempted to thwart him with a revolver or a shotgun as he had with the assault rifle?

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

The irony here is that I agree with M&B that an AR ban will be largely ineffective in stemming the problem of mass shootings. But he is missing that very point of the discussion: that an AR ban will certainly be effective in minimizing mass shootings with an AR!

Absolutely, if you ban any gun obviously the shootings will decrease with that type of firearm just because they won't be as easily available. I never was arguing against that. Less guns = less gun crime IMO and conversely, less guns of a certain type = less gun crime with that type of gun.

But what I'm saying is, is that if you take away gun A all a criminal does is replace it with gun B. And in cases where it's a mass shooting in a crowd of unarmed people, Gun B will almost certainly work as well as Gun A.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

And you claim to know unequivocally that he would have had just as easy a time to kill the teachers in the room who may have attempted to thwart him with a revolver or a shotgun as he had with the assault rifle?

Absolutely I can say that with 100% certainty that the unarmed teachers would have little impact on an armed gunman with just a revolver. In fact, getting hit with a revolver might actually be worse than getting hit with an AR depending on the revolver used.

I still think you're not getting my point though. While an AR obviously has more shots and obviously has more leniency for misses a gunman wishing to do what was done wouldn't simply go into the rooms with a revolver. He could, as I've described, but even this gunman didn't go in with just an AR. He had two semi-auto pistols with him that, if reports are correct, went unused. A person wanting to commit a similar crime in a perfect world where AR's were completely banned and unavailable to a citizen would simply just bring other weapons. This kid brought an AR, 2 semi-auto pistols and a shotgun. Take out the AR and replace the pistols with revolvers and you still have a kid you're unlikely going to stop. 2 revolvers is at least 12 shots, but a shotgun which is usually 5+1 that = a total of around 18 shots without reloading. The majority of people would be dead or injured before he even had to think about reloading.

 

[byco42]

Absolutely, if you ban any gun obviously the shootings will decrease with that type of firearm just because they won't be as easily available. I never was arguing against that. Less guns = less gun crime IMO and conversely, less guns of a certain type = less gun crime with that type of gun.

But what I'm saying is, is that if you take away gun A all a criminal does is replace it with gun B. And in cases where it's a mass shooting in a crowd of unarmed people, Gun B will almost certainly work as well as Gun A.

We're not talking about criminals in these circumstances. We're talking about sick, over-medicated young males.

 

[tinselwolverine]

Absolutely I can say that with 100% certainty that the unarmed teachers would have little impact on an armed gunman with just a revolver.

All right; I'm done; you've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you're just trolling now.

And I'm 99.9% certain of that.

 

[zyxt9]

You too? You really don't see any difference? If you were running away from someone shooting, you wouldn't care what gun they had?

that wasn't my point; however, studies have indicated that people tend to have less accuracy when shooting an AR than a pistol. sure the AR sends more lead down range, but most people using a pistol are typically aiming at their target more correctly than people using ARs, which either people tend to drop down to a body position where aiming is extremely general or if used in auto position the muzzle rises and decreases accuracy. granted much of that depends on level of training and expertise with the weapon. it is possible that someone with a pistol will be more deadly than someone with an AR though. also depends on size of rounds being used. so many variables at play. either way, running increases your survivability rate...i have a feeling the kids were more stationary due to fright and/or confusion.

 

[redandguilty]

Absolutely, if you ban any gun obviously the shootings will decrease with that type of firearm just because they won't be as easily available. I never was arguing against that. Less guns = less gun crime IMO and conversely, less guns of a certain type = less gun crime with that type of gun.

But what I'm saying is, is that if you take away gun A all a criminal does is replace it with gun B. And in cases where it's a mass shooting in a crowd of unarmed people, Gun B will almost certainly work as well as Gun A.

If I'm in that crowd, I want the shooter to have gun B. You might not be impressed by 2 seconds of reloading time, but I want those 2 seconds.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

If I'm in that crowd, I want the shooter to have gun B. You might not be impressed by 2 seconds of reloading time, but I want those 2 seconds.

Any minimal advantage you may get would mean nothing in terms of survivability. It would be a 1 in a million shot. So while maybe once and a while it may save a life in the grand scheme of things it does nothing to prevent the crime; which is my ultimate point.

 

[MAIZEandBLUE09]

All right; I'm done; you've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you're just trolling now.

And I'm 99.9% certain of that.

You may think that, but I'm not.

 

[byco42]

that wasn't my point; however, studies have indicated that people tend to have less accuracy when shooting an AR than a pistol. sure the AR sends more lead down range, but most people using a pistol are typically aiming at their target more correctly than people using ARs, which either people tend to drop down to a body position where aiming is extremely general or if used in auto position the muzzle rises and decreases accuracy. granted much of that depends on level of training and expertise with the weapon. it is possible that someone with a pistol will be more deadly than someone with an AR though. also depends on size of rounds being used. so many variables at play. either way, running increases your survivability rate...i have a feeling the kids were more stationary due to fright and/or confusion.

Classrooms are not very large spaces. And desks do not offer sufficient cover. Since we're getting clinical and forensic-like here. There's a chill going through this thread that is quelling my willingness to participate and I don't support an AR ban.

 

[byco42]

Any minimal advantage you may get would mean nothing in terms of survivability. It would be a 1 in a million shot. So while maybe once and a while it may save a life in the grand scheme of things it does nothing to prevent the crime; which is my ultimate point.

Two seconds in a life-death scenario is an eternity. When/if you ever face one, you'll understand that.