Shooting

[Crockett]

On second thought, I think the Clinton era ban on the AR15 and similar weapons should have been extended. As with lawn darts, their recreational value simply isn't worth the carnage.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

On second though, I think the Clinton era ban on the AR15 and similar weapons should have been extended. As with lawn darts, their recreational value simply isn't worth the carnage.

I asked Bubba this question and it went nowhere but you're clearly much more reasonable than he is, so I'll put it to you: did you read the specifics on what actually was classified as an assault rifle in that legislation? Unless what I've read was wildly inaccurate, the law was arbitrary and basically would have done nothing to keep a dangerous weapon on the sidelines. It read like a bunch of people who didn't know how to define an assault rifle got together and drew something up that would ban guns that looked scary. Aside from one of the criteria which I believe was magazine capacity, every other qualification was cosmetic or irrelevant (collapsible butt, pistol grip, bayonet attachment, black coloring... a couple more which I can't remember.) As I recall, the law said that to qualify, you had to have a combination of either two or three of those items.

Am I missing something? What about that ban would have stopped any of this?

 

[mb227]

How many firearms are in her school now? Would she allow an armed cop in her school?

I would opine that proper use of concealed weapons would leave few knowing that true number...

I liken the ability to have teachers certified to carry to when the State gave that ability to parole officers within the past decade or so. It was a choice and, if they chose to exercise that choice, they had to be properly qualified. Somewhat surprisingly, many PO's choose NOT to carry but some do. Some that you would guess carried don't and some that you would have never expected to carry elected to become qualified to carry.

 

[mb227]

This guy?

Here, he quotes Tywin Lannister -

That 'dramatic drop' in violent crime is going to take a hit when the next report showing incidents per 100K persons comes out...

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Can you imagine... if a conservative had been in this guy's position, and been asked whether they could have done something to prevent this shooting, and he'd said, "Well... if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, you know? That's why they have (whatever he called it when they review cases), so we can learn from them." BTW... I'm not sure what he's going to learn from this if he's insistent that they did everything right, his leadership was superb, and it's not his fault if his deputies wouldn't do their job, or if his department didn't follow up on 40 house visits, numerous warnings including a call from the shooter himself.

 

[mb227]

Maybe it was civil forfeiture, and they just got a paint job?

An ex of mine ended up as an ADA in Oxnard (Ventura County) and I recall they had fancy boats, jet skis, ATVs and so forth out the wazoo. No telling what else

Concur with this...had a parole client once with drug conduct in multiple jurisdictions and where there were at least two confirmed asset forfeitures where vehicles went to use with the DARE program in that jurisdiction.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

Little known fact: if YOUR bullet hits the other shooter before their bullet hits you, the other guy's bullet immediately disintegrates. So it's literally impossible to kill a guy with a gun, if his gun shoots bullets that go faster than yours. Or something...

 

[mb227]

I'm always suspicious of stuff on sites with partisan agendas, but this looks pretty legit:

https://constitution.com/school-shooting-plot-exposed-wont-believe-set/

And if true, it explains how a student could have the police come to his home over 30 times with no arrest or record - the school district he was in made a deal with the sheriff's office to not prosecute students in their schools so that their stats could be better.

Remember that if those calls were as a minor, they are generally 'detentions' and not 'arrests.' Further, it is sometimes difficult to get details on juvenile records, even when they involve your own client AND the client has signed a release for those records of his own conduct years before.

This can skew what gets out into the media accounts.

 

[Joe Fan]

 

[Joe Fan]

Little known fact: if YOUR bullet hits the other shooter before their bullet hits you, the other guy's bullet immediately disintegrates. So it's literally impossible to kill a guy with a gun, if his gun shoots bullets that go faster than yours. Or something...

MSNBC goes somewhat beyond 'fake news' here and into complete lack of common sense

 

[Phil Elliott]

I don't write laws and I don't care if you have an AR15. I don't want knuckleheads to get AR15. Kind of hard to define knucklehead, but Cruz fits within the definition.

So it's the NRA's fault that this guy was able to legally purchase the gun? Please cite the NRA policy where they defend selling crazies guns? The breakdown here is that he was never labeled a "knucklehead" officially to where the gun dealer would know not to sell to him. How is that the NRA's fault in any way?

I think you are right - we cannot have a discussion on this because you are not being rational. You just repeat the "NRA=bad" talking points from the left without really understanding what the heck you are talking about. Throwing the NRA under the bus is not going to fix this problem. It's just feel-good virtue signaling, which is all the left is interested in anyway.

 

[I35]

There were friggin unarmed teachers and coaches in there trying to save student's lives and 2 or 3 getting killed. But you got highly trained paid officers armed playing paper, rock, scissors for 4 or 5 minutes to see who will go in first to take out the shooter while kids """INSIDE""" screaming for their lives. But they thought the shooter was outside. That is ridiculous!!!

 

[Phil Elliott]

MSNBC goes somewhat beyond 'fake news' here and into complete lack of common sense

Even IF her argument made any sense, I'd still rather go after them with an under-powered weapon than with NOTHING, which is what the left is advocating.

 

[UTChE96]

Even IF her argument made any sense, I'd still rather go after them with an under-powered weapon than with NOTHING, which is what the left is advocating.

I took it to mean that we should give the teachers AR15s as well. Cant have our teachers shooting back with those weak 9mm handguns. I mean what if the Flash is the assailant? He could dodge those glacially slow handgun bullets.

 

[bystander]

From what I understand, a 9MM with a clip that can be pulled out and another slapped in can do as much damage especially if a fire alarm is pulled. It also is easier to smuggle in. Am I wrong on this?

 

[Crockett]

So it's the NRA's fault that this guy was able to legally purchase the gun? Please cite the NRA policy where they defend selling crazies guns? The breakdown here is that he was never labeled a "knucklehead" officially to where the gun dealer would know not to sell to him. How is that the NRA's fault in any way?

You think the federal government would have happened upon this bizarre and haphazard way of tracing guns without help of the NRA?

Would AR15 sales be legal if the NRA hadn't pushed hard against the Clinton assault weapons ban?

The NRA says it's about protecting your rights to own firearms. That's a noble enough purpose. I'd like for there to be limitations on weapons like the ones used in several horrific school shootings and I'd like better tracking of firearms in circulation. The NRA and I disagree on this. The NRA is very powerful and I'd like to take the organization down a notch in what I perceive as the interest of public safety.

 

[Crockett]

From what I understand, a 9MM with a clip that can be pulled out and another slapped in can do as much damage especially if a fire alarm is pulled. It also is easier to smuggle in. Am I wrong on this?

When I shoot, it takes me longer to aim a pistol and longer to reset after recoil.

 

[bystander]

When I shoot, it takes me longer to aim a pistol and longer to reset after recoil.

But in a situation of a crowded hallway? I'm just trying to understand where the bar is supposed to be now.

 

[Crockett]

Yeah, if the quarters are so close you don't have to aim, I guess a pistol would be comparable. i was assuming the targets were moving away and dodging. Maybe in a crisis, common sense would desert us. For sure, there should be drills that prepare us for active shooters and there should be some standard behaviors, running if possible, hiding, confrontation en masse when there is no other way.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Can you imagine... if a conservative had been in this guy's position, and been asked whether they could have done something to prevent this shooting, and he'd said, "Well... if ifs and buts were candy and nuts, you know? That's why they have (whatever he called it when they review cases), so we can learn from them." BTW... I'm not sure what he's going to learn from this if he's insistent that they did everything right, his leadership was superb, and it's not his fault if his deputies wouldn't do their job, or if his department didn't follow up on 40 house visits, numerous warnings including a call from the shooter himself.

Just compare the lax scrutiny of this political hack of a Sheriff with the scrutiny that FEMA and the Bush Administration took after Hurricane Katrina. To any remotely fair person, FEMAs response was far more defensible.

 

[Crockett]

I asked Bubba this question and it went nowhere but you're clearly much more reasonable than he is, so I'll put it to you: did you read the specifics on what actually was classified as an assault rifle in that legislation? Unless what I've read was wildly inaccurate, the law was arbitrary and basically would have done nothing to keep a dangerous weapon on the sidelines. It read like a bunch of people who didn't know how to define an assault rifle got together and drew something up that would ban guns that looked scary. Aside from one of the criteria which I believe was magazine capacity, every other qualification was cosmetic or irrelevant (collapsible butt, pistol grip, bayonet attachment, black coloring... a couple more which I can't remember.) As I recall, the law said that to qualify, you had to have a combination of either two or three of those items.

Am I missing something? What about that ban would have stopped any of this?

Actually, I hadn't revisited the legislation since it went out of force and your memory of it is far more detailed than mine. Prompted by your query I did a little reading. You are correct that it was poorly written, focused too much on cosmetics and, at least in my opinion, too little on weapon capability.

 

[Crockett]

But in a situation of a crowded hallway? I'm just trying to understand where the bar is supposed to be now.

Besides the number of bullets fired, there is the velocity issue. The AR-15 rounds are going more than twice as fast and are more likely to shatter on impact. The caliber is small, but the bullet velocity is so high it packs tremendous stopping power. I'm sure there are lots of differences in ammo. Maybe with the right ammo ( hollow point bullets maybe?) you could get comparable short range lethality with a 9mm round.

 

[Joe Fan]

Off color and tasteless, but still the funniest one of these Ive seen

Spoiler

 

[UTChE96]

Maybe with the right ammo ( hollow point bullets maybe?) you could get comparable short range lethality with a 9mm round.

A frangible 9mm or higher is going to be pretty damn lethal at these distances. The 9mm is the most commonly used round by law enforcement. There is a reason for that. It's effective, allows for quicker follow-up rounds, very accurate, and allows for high capacity magazines (relative to 0.40 S&W and 45 ACP). Accuracy and training are really the most important factors here. The focus on velocity by MSNBC is beyond laughable and disqualifies them from any serious discussion on this issue.

 

[ProdigalHorn]

I hadn't revisited the legislation since it went out of force and your memory of it is far more detailed than mine.

You give my memory WAYYYYYYY too much credit!

 

[Sangre Naranjada]

The focus on velocity by MSNBC is beyond laughable and disqualifies them from any serious discussion on this issue.

The fact it is an NBC affiliate disqualifies them from any serious discussion, IMO.

 

[Phil Elliott]

I took it to mean that we should give the teachers AR15s as well.

I never thought of that. You are clearly smarter than I am.

 

[Phil Elliott]

You think the federal government would have happened upon this bizarre and haphazard way of tracing guns without help of the NRA?

Do you really believe the government *needs* the NRA in order to be inefficient and sloppy?

 

[bystander]

A frangible 9mm or higher is going to be pretty damn lethal at these distances. The 9mm is the most commonly used round by law enforcement. There is a reason for that. It's effective, allows for quicker follow-up rounds, very accurate, and allows for high capacity magazines (relative to 0.40 S&W and 45 ACP). Accuracy and training are really the most important factors here. The focus on velocity by MSNBC is beyond laughable and disqualifies them from any serious discussion on this issue.

So you see where I'm going with this discussion; a 9mm and a plan would moot any assumption of safety if AR-15's were banned. Not that I would cry over a ban. I'm just trying to figure out where the logic starts in all of this.

 

[OUBubba]

I asked Bubba this question and it went nowhere but you're clearly much more reasonable than he is, so I'll put it to you: did you read the specifics on what actually was classified as an assault rifle in that legislation? Unless what I've read was wildly inaccurate, the law was arbitrary and basically would have done nothing to keep a dangerous weapon on the sidelines. It read like a bunch of people who didn't know how to define an assault rifle got together and drew something up that would ban guns that looked scary. Aside from one of the criteria which I believe was magazine capacity, every other qualification was cosmetic or irrelevant (collapsible butt, pistol grip, bayonet attachment, black coloring... a couple more which I can't remember.) As I recall, the law said that to qualify, you had to have a combination of either two or three of those items.

Am I missing something? What about that ban would have stopped any of this?

I responded with statistics, yo.

1984-1994: 19 shootings. 155 deaths
1994-2004: 12 shootings. 89 deaths
2004-2014: 34 shootings. 302 deaths