CT tragedy

[CobraXP]

freeport - My apologies if I aided in your thread veering off-topic - I know the feeling in that happening to mine on forums, so I will try to curtail and keep comments within the realm of the thread. My thoughts on how to protect schools - more so our children - seem to always pull me back to the 'gun control' conversation, so I'll try to make sure I intertwine the two.



Rich, I agree with everything you and others have posted in the last few days - with the exception of magazine capacity. While I understand your point of view and can understand the thought process, I just cannot accept it as a viable solution. I see too much reality and remember the previous ban where all that it did was stop the majority of the sales - it did not stop the usage nor the accessibility to high capacity magazines. I think back the 'The Matrix', when Neo walks through a metal detector with 20 guns on him. I think of that and know you can give me (1) 30 round mag, or (6) .38 revolvers - I will still be able to put down 30 rounds in no time. Or maybe it is just the number '6' that catches me - I haven't figured it out yet. I've thought about it (this thread and all the other comments around the web and media) for days now, and every time I hear someone say 6 rounds or less, I immediately think of the Colt 1911 and the M1 Garand. Both tried and true firearms. The 1911 has proven itself over 100 years, and the first gun I ever shot and have always been the most comfortable with. A firearm that I am so comfortable with that it fits my hand and style better than a 2 year old pair of shoes does my feet. The M1 was the first true rifle (not just a 22 for cans) I was ever handed and that I still proficiently shoot 600 yards with on 14 clicks (an admirer of the Garand will understand that ). It seems to prevail on my mind and becomes the personal side of the argument to me. The reality of it is that a magazine capacity ban does not stop anything. It does not curtail accessibility as I would imagine the number of 20 and 30 round magazines in circulation in this country alone to be in the tens of millions, if not more. As we all have said, if someone with the mental faculties to carry out these scenarios will do, if they want to do it, they will find a way - ban or not. If they have access to an AR, an AK, a Glock, whatever, then there is a very high probability they have access now to the magazines. A ban will not stop that.



(Continued to next post - sorry it split somehow)

 

[CobraXP]

So my thoughts to bring the topic back in - if we know that in reality we cannot stop the amount of fire brought, how do we stop the act? You have to look at it from a proactive stance and a reactive stance.



Proactive

First, you have to take immediate actions on helping identify and aid anyone with the mental tendencies that are seen in this behavior. This president has made sure the American people understand that health care is his major priority, so instead of using this situation as one to throw more gun laws at people in a reckless time period (results by the first of the month! Come on!), why not utilize the same amount of money, needed time, and resources into being proactive and aiding in helping people with their problem. You also have to take on the social negativity and violence that people are constantly bombarded with every day. When most of us that are 35 are older were young and Nintendo and Atari came out, the most we had to worry about was not getting eaten in Pitfall by the alligators and the blocks falling faster in Tetris. We did not have Zombie games and these war games that show the death, violence, and bloodshed that children are being desensitized to. I believe the government has the perfect time to start this ball rolling, but if our local social settings (churches, schools, local activities, and moreover parents) do not follow lead, then this conversation is for nothing.



Reactive

While I am not the biggest fan of having to defend our schools like we do a high risk government facility with armed guards because I do not want children to see that in schools, I do agree that at this time, we do need to design a network for security within our schools. People are asking where the money and manpower will come from. Once again, I look at the president and wonder why the idea of utilizing some of our military forces that he speaks of bringing home has not come up? A growing number of our unemployment rate is our veterans that are coming home and have no job to come home to. These are people that are already trained in firearms and have some sense of chain of command instilled in them. They understand honor, morals, and values - something that are schools are dearly lacking in. With proper planning and organization (and mental capacity themselves), I think these people are one of our best options for helping in a reactive situation - say if someone was to penetrate a school again. I believe putting these jobs under the local police force jurisdiction with school administration involvement and having them stationed at each school in and around the office area (because any well designed school has the office as part of the entrance and exit) fits the bill.



Now you bring up how to pay for it. Two options I see that could easily be done (well probably not easy as you will read)...



I agree with a tax on firearms and ammunition and would have no problem with that. The tax can be either federal or state/local controlled. Personally, I would rather be state or local, but that is another argument for another day. The second way to pay would be since the president wants to bring these veterans home, the defense budget is large enough that with the costs savings of not housing soldiers and families abroad and bases not at full staff, turn that money into the well being of homeland defense. See - I told you not so easy...



I have also heard rumors of the government "focus group" looking at rolling the 'assault weapons' groups into NFA. While I have not decided if I really like this idea - (still thinking on this) - there would be revenue generated in it. If you are not familiar with NFA items, you'll have to learn about that yourself as I don't have enough page space to detail that. The problem I see with this idea is that although you would generate revenue, the administrative costs for something like this would be astronomical given the current setting and sheer amount of weapons and paperwork. The second part is that how would you enforce it? I do see some merit in the idea, but still think it needs more thought.



Through all the typing, all the time spent talking about it with others, and all the time I sit and think about the topic, my child, our schools, and the reality of the world we live in, I still continue to come back to the position that it is not any new gun laws or bans that is going to make one difference in the problem. The solution has to come from the people. Everyone - whether you own a gun or not - has the responsibility to take a proactive step in making our world safer. Evil will be here no matter what - just the way it is folks. But just because someone does not own guns and believe they are the 'evil of the world' - it does not give them the right to control the lives and decisions of others that do. Same argument for those that will 'clinch their guns to their dying breath' - you cannot force your will on others and have to make sure you take the personal responsibility to protect and use the firearms in a safe, moral way.



Just my opinion.....





David

 

[Carey Frennier]

Richard L,



Relax.



If you tax the hell out of guns and ammo people will basically stop using them recreationally and the stead income will slowly drop.



I already pay school taxes. They could go up a little and some of the principles and teachers I know that make 80-100k a year could afford to take a few less golfing trips to help pay for security in schools. That's a stead source of money that's not dependent on arms sales.



That's a permanent funding solution and that is why people are suggesting it. It's not a buck passing play.

 

[Carey Frennier]

I get along fine with 10rd mags at the range but when I'm jumping out of bed in my boxers, I want that normal capacity mag. If you're preparing to go into combat or simply to kill people, you can just carry as many mags as you want, 5,10,20,30. It doesn't matter what the mag capacity is. With most guns, any mag can be changed in less than a second or a second and a half. And you will see that with suicide mass killers. They are familiar with whatever weapon system they plan on using and they know how to efficiently deploy their means of death.



There is absolutely no further restrictions that can be placed on an assault styled firearm that will make a difference to a familiar handler. Not even the Cali bullet button. Which is by far the most effective of all tool in slowing down a mag change. I know people that have had an AR for less than a week that cs. Change a mag on a Bullet Button faster than military vets with a non- CA compliment weapon.

 

[Carey Frennier]

Actually, one of the most cumbersome and slow mags to change is the 7.62x39 AK-47 weapon system mag. Other than the ammo weight, rifle weight, poor optics platform and lack of a ready modular assembly, that's one of the primary reasons the US didn't adopt their own variant of that system and went with the AR platform.

 

[Richard L]

Redfish, Cobra, Cary and others,

I agree that I would probably insert too much of my opinion into the any legal or reasonable need for a a larger magazine size, but I also feel I would not be alone in my opinion. California has already banned Assault weapons and limit magazine size to 10 rounds. Perhaps it?s my suggestion of only 6 rounds that is upsetting everyone?? My position is that, if the deer or target is not shooting back at you , you do not need 20 or 30 rounds in your magazine.



I agree that restrictions on Assault type weapons or magazine size will not necessarily stop all mass shooting, as some people will find a way around these limitations. My hope is that while trying to acquire assault rifles, or large capacity magazines, and excessive amounts of ammo, that it will set off red flags that maybe the authorities need to look into.

I am also convinced that the military need for large magazine capacity is to sustain a high rate of fire that does not apply to civilian needs and only feeds the Rambo-Syndrome in those who may already have some mental issues.



I only choose 6 round magazine limit because many small caliber handguns typically have 6 or 7 round magazines and most revolvers only have 5 or 6 rounds. The other reason is that even with the ability to change magazines in 1 to 2 seconds, the number of magazine a shooter would need to carry creates more delay in the constant reloading and also the added manual manipulation of all those magazines will generate more delays and more time for people to seek cover or escape.



I also agree that some people will be able to gains access to Assault weapons and large capacity magazine, but that also may expose them to the authorities who may be able to intervene and stop the incident from ever happening?

I feel that any hypothetical scenario that involves some apocalyptic event or even a natural disaster is pushing the envelope of reasonableness. While there have been some lootings and price gouging in the aftermath of natural disasters, I am not aware of any incidents of roaming gangs with assault weapons shooting people in any of the disasters like Katrina, or Sandy? In fact it appears that just the opposite is happening?More people seem to be helping each other in these situations rather than assaulting each other. I think much of this paranoia stems from the various Disaster movie, like Red Dawn or perhaps the many ?What if? disaster shows shown on the History Channel.



The there are the Survivalist who feel that the government will collapse in some kind of civil war or that some apocalyptic war or natural disaster will leave as all to fend for ourselves against roaming bands of criminals who want to steal our provisions??? Could it happen?....Sure it could, but I will not allow something that remote to generate paranoia and dictate the way I live.



...Rich

 

[H D]

There is simply zero evidence than bans on anything work. The market is stronger than legislation every time.

 

[Richard L]

Hugh,

There is simply zero evidence than bans on anything work. The market is stronger than legislation every time.

Actually your statement is not true. When the assault weapons ban and limited magazine size was was originally started in around 1994, it had actually shown a drop in these kinds of mass shootings.....until 2004 when it expired 10 years later. Now the shooting have increased....hmmm? I am not a scientist or statistician, but I think that certainly says a lot about the validity and factual basis of your statement !!!



...Rich

 

[Carey Frennier]

Magazine size has NOTHING to do with an increase in mass shootings. Mental instability does.



Any possible correlation between the two is simply propaganda.



Just like when people say that removing guns reduces gun violence. It does. What they don't report in the media, but is statistically proven, is that the same average deaths take place and crime is not reduced. Only the medium of assault is changed.



It's all crap. Every bit of it.

 

[EddieS'04]

My hope is that while trying to acquire assault rifles, or large capacity magazines, and excessive amounts of ammo, that it will set off red flags that maybe the authorities need to look into.

I am also convinced that the military need for large magazine capacity is to sustain a high rate of fire that does not apply to civilian needs and only feeds the Rambo-Syndrome in those who may already have some mental issues.

Rich, I realize you dont know me or others on personaly. Im no rambo or mentaly unstable. I do feel there is a judgment being passed on the masses that disagree with you.

When I shoot my pistols or rifle. I go away from, however good or bad I did the same as someone that has played horse shoes. My mind is more towards making my guns safe when putting them away. I think sport shooting is beyond your understanding.



If I did well I dont walk away with some type of powerful feeling. My 22 with a 25round clip was bought because it is lighter than it's 10 round clip brother with plastic stock. They were both on sale @ $20 difference.I wanted a 22 in my budget range. The 25 round mag was just a plus with the rifle. It had no affect on why I bought it. I do like it though.



When I take it to the country. It is enjoyable to setup many targets to see how fast I can clear the board you might say. Again good or bad I have no rambo or powerful look at me feeling. Example would be. I have watched people play board games, dominoes or sports games. When they win they go away Ah HAHing, look at me pat me on the back again attitude. I dont feel that way after a sport shoot of rapid fire even if I hit 100%. I feel good about it but no Rambo attitude. Those that are with me could tell you, so. If I go to the range. I dont come home bragging to my freinds, showing off my targets and such. Im not a brager.



Im glad you at least agree that limits will not stop mass killings. I still feel as if your dislike has become a judgemnt on those that dont see it your way.



BTW, I dont drink or drug. Feb 22 will be 25yr of sobriety..:grin:



I just cant get it off my mind that all sport shooters are being lumped into the same barrell as the KOO-KOO's. Just because they like a certain rifle or certain size clip.

My hope is that while trying to acquire assault rifles, or large capacity magazines, and excessive amounts of ammo, that it will set off red flags that maybe the authorities need to look into.

That is why I would feel judged. My hope is the government will stay out of my bussiness. Until the guns, mags' and bullits issue becomes unlawful to own. As I said before. I may not like it, but I will follow the law.



I only came back to this thead to read. But I couldnt pass up the judgement call. That was expressed by another member. Until the second admendment is amended to specifics(muskets only:bwahaha. We have the right to enjoy what is put on the civlian market. Like it or not. BTW, I dont know any rambo's in my group. I realy dont think the gun creates a rambo. That person already is one before the first time they shoot.



Many of them already are one in ball game sports. That includes some of the spectators. That are loud mouthed over a game.



Peace Brother......

 

[Robert Thomas]

I have been in six or seven hurricanes, a few riots, watched the Mexican Border for a while, and seen what havoc escaped criminals can do. I was in DC after Martin Luther King was killed. It was the middle of a full fledged riot, the whole city was on fire and gunshots were heard everwhere. Riots have occurred in the US and will continue. In the aftermath of Katrina, Hugo, and Elana (I think) you didn't sleep at night, you guarded what you had. A shoot looters order was given to the police in NO. The National Guard was sent in to NO to restore Civil Unrest. As the National Debt rises to around 20 trillion, some bad things are going to happen when the welfare checks stop.



I live on a peninsula with 17 million people, a nuclear power plant 15 miles to the north, a flood zone, and the possibility that the whole peninsula could be closed. To not be prepared for something like the above is pure lunacy for me. It is not paranoia nor does it dictates the way I live, it is no more a problem than getting car insurance.



I cannot fathom why someone would condem me or those like me as psycho's, wacko survivalist, or rambo's wanta be's. Live and let live.

 

[H D]

Come on Richard. You know that correlation does not imply causation. I could quote an equally unqualified theory that the economy was much better in that period and mental health problems were less prevalent as a result, then surmise that less mass shootings occurred with a mentally healthier nation.



Btw, would you like to provide some statistics that show mass shooting have increased in relation to the 90s? I'm not saying it's not true, I just have a bit of skepticism. Even if it is...I like my correlation/causation better than yours, so that's the theory I'll go with.:grin:

 

[H D]

Just a couple interesting excepts from the article linked below on the Discovery website.





...on July 26, 1764, a teacher and 10 students were shot dead by four Lenape American Indians in Greencastle, Pennsylvania, in what is considered the earliest known U.S. mass school shooting.



In 1938 almost half of the population of the rural village of Kaio, near Tsuyama city in Japan, was murdered as 21-year-old Mutsuo Toi killed 30 people with a shotgun, sword and axe, injured three others and then shot himself to death.



Between 1954 and 1957, William Unek murdered a total of 57 people in two separate spree killings in the Belgian Congo. He first killed 21 people with an axe, then shot dead ten men, eight women and eight children, slaughtered six more men with the axe, burned two women and a child, and strangled a 15-year-old girl.



Some of the earliest recorded cases include the 1893 killing with guns and swords of 11 people (including an infant) in Osaka, Japan, the 1914 shooting of 7 people in the Italian village of Camerata Cornello, not to mention the case of German spree killer Ernst August Wagner.







What's the most common denominator between these killings? None of them have anything to do with magazine size or speed of reloading, especially the axes and swords. Crazy people do crazy things, sometimes violent crazy things.

 

[H D]

Oops, should have finished reading first. Please explain.



"Since 1900, the highest mass murder rate was in 1929. Mass public shootings are one of several types of mass murder and generally account for roughly 10-15 percent of all mass killings in the U.S.," Duwe said.



According to the criminologists, the 1990s had the highest number of mass public shootings with a little more than 40 -- an average of a little more than 4 each year.



The number of mass public shootings dropped below 30 in the years between 2000 and 2009.







Sorry for three consecutive posts.:smack:

 

[Carey Frennier]

"The number of mass public shootings dropped below 30 in the years between 2000 and 2009"



While this may very well be a valid statistic, it's meaningless unless ALL crimes, net, dropped. As I and many others have said. You can remove guns as the medium but those wishing harm will find another medium. Thus, crime itself doesn't drop.

 

[Robert Thomas]

Many good ideas have been presented in this post. A couple of themes have been presented and discussed. Firearms, mental health, armed guards, and ect. The post has gotten off the subject somewhat of actually protecting the students and the best way to accomplish this. If one looks these type of mass murders as a firearm or mental health issues we are attempting to cure cultural problem. This is a hard road which none have a good answer for since the begining of time. Shoud they be addressed, most definetly. But, consider the immediate goal, protecting children while at school.



I see this as a problem that can be accomplished with a small fiscal outlay per school (100 to 200 thousand dollars per school. Get the money as you wish from the city, county or state where the school is located. Harden the school. The police are assigned to the school entrance in the morning and evening when students are arriving. After the start of school no one is allowed in the school without entering through a single controlled access. You go to a area much like a Bank. The administrative staff is behind a teller like window. If you have a need to enter the student area you are cleared through the two way lock chamber. If you are picking up a student you wait and the student is delivered to you. No one enters a student area without approval. No police presence should be needed once school starts.



The rest is a architectural problem. Harden the school access, windows, classrooms as needed.

 

[Richard L]

Cary,

Everything you have said is propaganda. It just depends on whose propaganda you want to believe? There are statistics on both sides of the issue that one can use to reinforce their position, but you have offered none except to say it?s all Crap! That?s not a debate, that just taking your ball and bat and going home when you strike out!



You told me to relax, yet you appear to be the one foaming at the mouth??



...Rich

 

[Richard L]

Eddie,

If you read all my posts where I refer to the Rambo-Syndrome?I have always said that it only had an effect on those who may already have some Mental or Social disorder. I never said anyone who wanted to purchase an assault type weapon or large capacity magazine had a Rambo-syndrome.

Also, Since you came so close to the legal and rational reason to need larger capacity magazines I will reveal what I hoped someone here would have already known:

I previously stated that small caliber weapons can kill but 22?s, and ammo in caliber of 380 or less are typically only fatal if they strike a vital organ or artery. Also, they do not have the stopping power of the larger caliber ammo, so when used in a small concealed carry weapon you could possibly need multiple shots to bring down an assailant. Some states including Texas realize this and do not allow you to qualify with any handgun with a caliber smaller than 380. (9mm Short). I don?t feel that magazine capacity of small caliber weapons like 22 pistols or rifles is really the issue since they are not commonly used by those who are intent on killing a lot of people.



If you look at details of when President Ronald Reagan was shot, the shooter used a 22 caliber pistol. At least 3 people were shot and all survived. Reagan was hit in the chest, a Secret Service man was hit in the stomach, and Press Secretary Brady was hit in the head and suffered the most severe and long lasting injuries. Reagan did not even know he was hit, until they saw the blood and then they immediately redirected the car to the hospital where he collapsed while trying to walk from the car to the Emergency Department.



...Rich

 

[Richard L]

Redfish,

I feel people who adopt an apocalyptic view of every disaster are not being very rational. Perhaps they have been affected by the fantasy scenarios presented in the apocalyptic and disaster shows on TV or in some movies like Red Dawn. Too many of these individuals have a ?Shoot first, ask questions later? attitude.



In every natural disaster you mentioned there were often looters. However the vast majority of them were looting stores and shops. Looting private homes was less common and only occurred when houses were severely damaged or abandoned?.In NO, the ?Shoot looters on sight? orders were quickly withdrawn or ignored and the authorities allowed the people trapped in NO to take food and water from stores. I don?t know that any looters were ever shot? The only incident I heard of was a police officer with a shotgun had stopped a looter exiting a store and just told him to put the stuff back?.The looter grabbed the shotgun and a struggle ensued and he was shot? That is not exactly ?Shooting looters on site?

Even so, that order would not apply to you. You as a private citizen do not have the right to shoot anyone unless you are threatened?even if you have a concealed carry permit. If some idiot wants your TV, why do you want to engage in a gun battle over a damned TV? I have insurance that deals with that.

Statistic show that if you have ANY gun, more than 55% of the criminals (with or without weapons) will retreat, so it does not matter if it is a 22 pistol or AK-47 with a 30 round magazine. As someone with a concealed carry permit, you must have heard that your first choice of action is to retreat from the situation and avoid a confrontation?



If you are truly a survivalist and worried about your safety and the safety of your family and friends, you would be the first in line to get out of Dodge, and you would head to high ground in the wilderness where you are likely not to see another human for months or years and wait till it all blows over?..And you can take your Assault rifle with you, along with dozens of 30-round magazines and 10,000 rounds of ammo to ward off the looters.



...Rich

 

[Richard L]

Hugh,



That statistic I am talking about was reported on a recent episode of Meet the Press. And even in the article YOU posted, the expert would appear to agree with me. You appear to be publishing only the specific facts that fit your ideology.



So let?s reveal all the data presented in the article:



He says: ?On the contrary, the second mass murder wave from the mid-1960s through the mid-1990s consisted of a greater number of mass public shootings, similar to the recent Aurora Movie Theater shooting and Newtown school shooting.



Notice that he said "through the mid-1990?s", which would be around the time the Assault Weapons, and large capacity magazines ban went into effect, now wouldn't it? hmmm? I'm sure you just conveniently overlooked that point because it actually supports my statement that there was a decline in mass shootings in the mid-1990?s just as he said!



The only part he does not mention is what is he considering a mass shooting incident that are included in his statistics??? Is shoot 2 or more people a mass shooting? Are gang or drug related shootings counted? Is he including various other forms of murder where the shooter knows the victims and is targeting them? Or is he only counting mass shootings of innocent victims where the victims are strangers to the shooter and he has no rational motive for shooting them?



Also there are different types of mass shootings. In the case of Charles Whitman, the Texas Tower Shooter in 1964 who shot his victims like a military sniper, from a concealed location in a high tower with a 360 degree view overlooking a large college campus. Many people did not even know that someone was shooting at them? That shootings lasted for more than 90 minutes before police finally got onto the observation deck of the?with the aid of civilians with rifles who kept Whitman pinned down with a heavy volley of fire so police could close in on him.



Can the reduction in mass shooting statistics in the mid 1990?s be directly attributed to the Assault Weapon and large capacity magazine ban??? I don?t know, but you cannot just dismiss it as meaningless when you want to use all the other statistics from other countries or non-shooting related murders to imply that mass shootings or mass murders occur without the use of assault weapons and large capacity magazines?.



I don?t believe they are really related, since someone with an assault rifle and a bunch of pre-loaded, large capacity magazines can kill at a far faster rate, and at a distance, than anyone can with an axe or sword. I am talking about the ability to quickly and continuously kill an infinite number of people until you run out of ammo or someone intervenes to stop you.



I believe the ban on assault weapons and large capacity magazines was effective, was the reason for the drop in mass shootings, and so I believe the facts as stated on Meet the Press are truthful and accurate. I don?t think that banning assault weapons or large capacity magazines is the only solution, but is a major component to the solution package that will include mental health issues, increased security, greater weapon ownership responsibilities, and perhaps tighter controls and monitoring of gun, magazine and ammo sales.



It will not stop all mass shootings, but will make it a little more difficult to acquire the weapons and perhaps leave a suspicious trail that will allow authorities to connect the dots and stop him before he can act.



....Rich